tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-357504432024-02-19T04:32:56.576-06:00Fleas Biting"You just need to be a flea against injustice. Enough committed fleas biting strategically can make even the biggest dog uncomfortable and transform even the biggest nation.”
-Marian Wright EdelmanDesireehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00379871315468470235noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-47812028813572225232015-07-14T00:34:00.000-05:002015-07-14T00:34:00.061-05:00US ICE Agent: What Really Happened in Cambodian Adoption<div class="tr_bq">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The document which follows, “What Really Happened in Cambodia”
is the transcript of a presentation by US Federal Special Agent, US ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) Richard Cross. The presentation, given at Cumberland School of Law, Samford
University in Birmingham, Alabama, on April 15, 2005, was part of a symposium entitled “Reforming Intercountry Adoption:
Present Realities and Future Prospects."</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mr. Cross presented on “Operation Broken Hearts,” the 2002 ICE investigation of international adoptions from Cambodia. This investigation and the evidence it uncovered led to the
convictions of Lynn Devin of Seattle International Adoptions, Inc. and her sister Lauryn Galindo, a US citizen involved in facilitating international adoptions from Cambodia to the US. Together the two were connected with about half (about 800 of 1600) of the international adoptions from Cambodia to the US from January 1997 through December 2001. <br />
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are many reasons to revisit and republish this transcript from so long ago here now. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The first reason is simply to preserve this important presentation in the public realm in an accessible way. We don't want it to disappear from our collective memory. The website that had hosted the presentation transcript, audiotape, and videotapes has taken them down. And so they'll find a new home here on Fleasbiting. (We're working on making the audiotape and videotapes accessible again. Look for an announcement when they're up and running.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Secondly, this presentation is important and should be available to those whose personal histories and life stories are tied up with it. It belongs most especially to those young men and women--now in their mid-teens through mid-twenties--who were adopted from Cambodia to the US from the late 90's through the early 2000's. As it is their story--or at least the context of their stories--they deserve to know the facts--or at least those arrived at by a US government investigation. They also have the right to know of the troublesome nature of many of the adoption documents--including those establishing basic personal identity--from that time period in Cambodia.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thirdly, Cambodia serves as a documented case study in adoption
corruption. As such, it should be required reading for anyone involved in or concerned with ICA (intercountry adoption), and particularly by those concerned with both illicit adoptions and the declining numbers of international adoptions. It's a case study in where and why the ICA system often fails. Cambodia was a formative event for many still active in ICA issues. The elements of the "cycle of abuse" or the cycle of "slash and burn adoptions" began to come clearly into view in the sordid details of the abuses in Cambodian adoption. This presentation paints the big picture of "What Really Happened in Cambodia" clearly and integrates the details into the whole. It's like seeing the picture emerge from disparate jigsaw puzzle pieces. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fourthly, this presentation is important because it's one of the very few times a U.S. government investigator has presented publicly--let alone in a speech as blunt and provocative as this one-- in great detail the results of an investigation of abusive adoption practices.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And finally, the transcript of Richard Cross's presentation is an important and convincing invitation to all who still resolutely cling to their rose-colored glasses when viewing international adoption, to finally give those glasses a rest and consider a more realistic view of the very real flaws—still largely unaddressed--in the ICA system. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
We'd be amiss if we' didn't here offer a big thank you to Brandeis University’s Schuster Institute of Investigative Journalism's students for their work in transcribing this speech. Thank You!!<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
And so, without further ado, Richard Cross, US Federal Special Agent, US ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), speaking at Cumberland School of Law at Samford University, in April 2005:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>What Really Happened in Cambodia</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Richard Cross, US Special Agent, US ICE</b></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote>
Well, good morning, and thanks for inviting me down here. Typically federal agents
don’t get to talk to anybody besides the law enforcement community, so this is kind of a
pleasure to be able to speak to up and coming lawyers. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Initially I knew nothing about adoptions, unfortunately after three years I know too much
about international adoptions. There is a seedier side and hopefully you’re going to hear
about the better side of international adoptions this afternoon with China, because
unfortunately all I dealt with was Cambodia. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
In about March of 2002 I got a phone call
when I was on vacation basically saying, were you willing to go to Cambodia for 90
days, we think there’s some Americans involved in some pretty shaky (note: not ‘shady’)
business over there. You’re going to be assigned to a… with an investigator from the East
Coast in case it goes to the eastern part of the United States instead of the western part of
the United States. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So I volunteered to go over to Cambodia for 90 days, after about 30 in
country, myself and my partner realized that we had federal crimes that had been
committed. We came back, met with a trial attorney from the main Justice Department
and then started talking about where do we want to prosecute this case. And that’s where
I’ll go ahead and start from. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
First off, I hardly knew where Cambodia was when I started this case, and for other
people in the audience who don’t know where it is, it’s in Southeast Asia, basically right
next to Vietnam. It’s a beautiful country. It’s very exotic. It’s definitely a third world and
my partner and I kept saying, well it’s pretty much a fourth world country. It’s the most
poverty stricken place I’ve ever been in my life. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
But before you can understand anything
about Cambodia, you gotta understand what has happened in recent memory, cause
everybody who’s living now, of the age of myself, in their 30s lived through the Khmer
Rouge time. They were either Khmer Rouge themselves or victims of the Khmer Rouge.
And about 1.5 million Cambodians were killed by other Cambodians during this time.
[shows a picture of stacked skulls] And then this is just a more graphic depiction of
Cambodia, because it’s a serious place and people forget that when they go over there to
adopt. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Once myself and my partner were in country, the first time we had any days off we
figured we’d go ahead and kind of get a better feel of the country. So we went out to one
of the most famous places there, called the Killing Fields and also to a place called S-21.
And this picture of this woman with the child stuck in their mind, just because people
who survived the Khmer Rouge they’re the ones who are having the babies now. So they
were victimized before and now they’re being victimized again. And another thing that
stuck while we’re taking a tour of the prison was this painting done by one of the few
survivors of the Khmer Rouge and it shows a baby being taken away from a mother with
the children in the background. So it kinda gives you more of a feel for Cambodia. I
mean they, they’ve gone through a terrible time in their lifetime. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The other speakers today will talk more about why the moratorium happened. I wasn’t on
the start of that. The moratorium started basically, started rolling in the fall of 2001. There were some indications that, from a human rights group, that babies were being
bought and sold. There was an incident involving this baby in the center [of the
powerpoint slide] and that’s basically the straw that broke the camel’s back that caused
the United States government to cause a moratorium in December of 2001. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The first two
people at the top of the screen, [pointing to the picture in the upper left corner of the
slide] this is [phonetically] Serey Puth. This is a person that Trish Mathews was very
familiar with. And then the person on the other side [pointing to the picture in the upper
right corner of the slide] is [phonetically] Sea Visoth. These were two Cambodian
facilitators that were, people believed were involved in buying up [possibly ‘of’] babies. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The reason that I was sent to Cambodia with my partner, Special Agent DC, was we
wanted to find out if any Americans were also involved in this. So at the beginning of the
case, [phonetically] Ms. Galindo on this side [points to the picture in the lower left corner
of the slide], who’s now a convicted felon, and her sister [points to the picture in the
lower right corner of the slide] who’s now a convicted felon had no part in this case. We
were initially just sent to Cambodia to find out if any American were involved in this
wrongdoing also, not knowing if they were, weren’t, they just wanted to put two
investigators on the ground to speak back to Washington. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Because at this time, while the moratorium was happening there was also another quote
‘investigation’ going on and that consisted of State Department employees, consular
officers, and some immigration officers out of the Bangkok office who were trying to
look into, see if there’s anything wrong and trying to prove visa applications. They’re not
trained criminal investigators, that’s why the criminal side of INS wanted to send two
agents to Cambodia, to see if there was in fact any criminal involvement. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So you’ll hear
kind of today, Trish will hit on it, that, you know, in a criminal case we put people in
prison but on the other side of the case there was a huge number of adoptions approved,
and they want to know how that happened, well it was two separate things going on, two
separate investigations. And all I’m going to talk about today is the criminal side of the
case. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
First off, this little baby is really the face of the moratorium. What had happened is this
child had been sold. A baby buyer bought this child, the mother wanted the child back,
the mother didn’t get the child back. She was told that it would be going to an orphanage
and that the child, she could have him back at any time, and he’d have a better life.<br />
Well,
after there was a raid on two stash houses, the mother approached a human rights group
and she said, hey I lost my child, can you find it? And the human rights group went
looking for this child, and unfortunately they couldn’t find it, so they passed the picture,
which we have right here, around to all the Western embassies in Phnom Penh to find out
if in fact anybody had this child. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And unfortunately the United States embassy had a visa
application for this child, totally separate identity and background, what we call baby
laundering. So once the director of INS, Mr. Zeigler found out about this, he said enough
is enough, no more kids are coming out of Cambodia, we’re not going to put up with this. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
I keep getting asked whenever I talk about the cases, why didn’t you charge her with
human trafficking. She couldn’t be charged with human trafficking, human trafficking only deals with sex or forced labor. You can get away with buying babies around the
world as a United States citizen, it’s not a crime, and most people don’t understand that,
and Ms. Galindo didn’t even understand that during her 20/20 interview, when she said I
wasn’t charged with baby buying. Well, if the law had existed, we would have charged
her with baby buying. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So we had to be more, you know, creative, go after her in different
ways on how we were going to charge her. And these were [points to a power point slide
listing the charges] a variety of charges that we decided we were going to focus on. And I
used all of them in my initial search warrant so that, I did about six months after I came
back from Cambodia, all except for the RICO conspiracy.
That was the hammer that actually helped cause the pleas in the end, because we gave
‘em a dog and pony show to each one of their lawyers when they came in and said, this is
what we have on you and this is what’s going to happen and we’re going to charge you
with a RICO, and with a RICO charge, you’re looking at 5-7 years, and if you don’t have
the money, we’re going to take money from everybody else who’s involved in this
conspiracy. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So they saw the light and we started plea negotiations, because at that time
they would’ve been looking at over a hundred false adoptions. By taking the plea, they
were able to plead to just to under 24 adoptions, and because of that, they were only
looking at about 18 months sentence, 18-24 months sentence. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Ms. Devin [?], the lady on the bottom [points to a power point slide], she realized real
quickly that she didn’t want to be a part of this, so she decided, I will be a government
witness, and she actually got a reduction in her sentence because she turned coat on her
sister and became a government witness, filled us in on exactly what was going on in the
conspiracy, and if it had gone to trial, sister against sister would have testified. So that
was kind of a plus, we hadn’t, you don’t usually see that on the federal side of a family
member willing to testify in such a serious case about another family member. In the end,
we did just charge them with conspiracy, and the conspiracy dealt with money laundering
and visa fraud. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Before I can even talk about Cambodia, I gotta give you a baseline of what a real
orphanage looks like. And thankfully when we were in Cambodia we actually found one
real orphanage, just like out of Kansas or somewhere else in the United States. Problem
is, no kids were adopted from here. There’s only three babies and about a hundred
children in there, up into their teenage years. And the missionary who runs this place
wants nothing to do with adoptions because of the child buying there. But we actually got
to find a real place, and I just want to show you what a real orphanage looks like in
Cambodia and it costs very, very little to run. So things could’ve been very nice, I mean
this is a beautiful place here. This is nice clean rooms for the older kids. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
One of the first red flags that my partner and I hit on when we were in Cambodia, cause
we started reading everything we could about the various facilitators and how they
operated in Cambodia. Well, Ms. Galindo came to the top because on her pamphlets it
was talking about parents had to carry $3,500 in crisp, hundred dollar bills into the
country. As a federal agent, I don’t even want to carry $50 in that country, it’s a crazy
place to be with robbers and just the amount of crime, but she was telling these Americans you have to bring in this type of money, and she was giving them receipts so
they could file their tax returns and get a write off on their taxes, she was very good
about that. But they were also calling it a required voluntary donation, that’s a misnomer
right there. So that was kind of a red flag. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And again this, you know we think, or when I first came into this investigation, you think
of orphans you think oh god this is great, so much humanitarian work involved. It’s a
business and people forget it. It is a major business with a lot of money to be made.
Initially in the case, we only thought Ms. Galindo did 700 adoptions but at [garbled] it
seems she actually said oh well I did 800, so that’s $9 million gross that came in.<br />
And
what we concentrated on, myself and my partner, was that money that was hand carried
into Cambodia for the betterment of the children that was, as you saw in the last thing
[slide], orphanage donations, so she had over $2 and a half million dollars in cash,
supposedly for the betterment of the children. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So basically what happened with it? Ms. Devin would talk to various people and say how
great it was, well she only went to Cambodia maybe about three times, so she was
basically out of the loop. But you know she would tell stories to the other adoptive
parents who were, who wanted to adopt, oh how great it was in Cambodia and how much
we’ve done to improve the country. Still to this day there’s so many adoptive parents in
the Cambodian community who think that nothing was wrong, it’s like they haven’t
woken up and smelled the coffee yet, that a serious crime occurred. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
One of the
individuals that I interviewed early on in the case, when I came back to the United States,
she described one of the orphanages as a chicken coop and I think that’s probably a better
description of it. Well, the conspiracy we charged went from 1997, January 1997 to December 2001 when
the moratorium happened. So this [a picture of a Cambodian orphanage] was over a year
into the conspiracy, they have, there’s been plenty of money that’s come in yet this place
doesn’t look anything like that other orphanage, and this is 1998. Well, we’ll give ‘em
time, cause hopefully they’ll improve it by the end of the conspiracy. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
When I first arrived in Cambodia we, myself, my partner just made unannounced visits
out at some of these Cambodian sites. They don’t know about federal law enforcement,
we don’t need search warrants to go in there, they’d allow us to go into these places and
allow us to take photos at some of them. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Well I was surprised when I came in because it
only costs $15 a month for a nanny, yet this little child [in a power point slide] is laying
in a pool of urine on the floor and nobody’s around. Yet there is so much money coming
in to this orphanage, how come they didn’t hire people to look after the kids? </blockquote>
<blockquote>
In the investigation, like I said we initially went to Cambodia for 90 days, we came back
after 30 and talked with the US Attorney. By that fall we had enough for search warrants
so we did simultaneous search warrants in Hawaii and in Seattle, and then the following
spring we went back to Cambodia for over a month because we wanted to go back and
see how things had changed and also to interview some of the people that we had
developed as suspects and evidence we had obtained from the search warrants. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So this is my second trip to the exact same orphanage where the little baby that I had found in the
puddle of urine, and you can see they haven’t done anything in a year [shows picture of
ripped wire screens]. And they are, they know they are under investigation by us, and it
probably only costs them $150-$200 dollars to screen that entire place, you know, one, a
small portion of a $3,500 donation. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
We also went to a government orphanage that was used by Ms. Galindo . This place is
called [phonetically] Kompong-spu, it’s about an hour outside of Phnom Penh. This here
again, I was very surprised, we met with the government officials that day, this was one
of the first times that we actually went out with the State Department people to interview
the Cambodians at the same time. Their meeting didn’t go well so myself and my partner
got up and left the meeting and just walked around the orphanage and I was surprised
when I went into this area where they had the babies, because they knew the Americans
were coming that day, and I found these babies in this, these hammocks are soaked in
urine and you can see that there’s feces dried on these hammocks. It was very, very nasty,
especially after the places that I had been before where that money could’ve been used to
help, for the betterment of the children. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And, you know, I still, Mrs. Galindo is a very interesting or charismatic person. She was
able to do this con. She was able to con so many people, but she was also able to con the
Cambodian government. And after the investigation had started, this picture was taken in
[shows picture], I believe, 2002 or 2003, she got them to give her a humanitarian award
for all the stuff she had done for the orphans in Cambodia, but as you see from before,
she really didn’t. And, I like it, I underline ‘try’ [try is underlined on PowerPoint] ‘cause
she didn’t use the money for the orphans of Cambodia. The money was used elsewhere.<br />
[Question by audience member]: Who gave her that award?
Cross: The Cambodia government [interrupted by inaudible question] and you’ll see that
later on in here. It went to the top of the Cambodian government. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
[picture of ‘stash
house’] This really disturbed us, too. Myself and my partner had talked to the human
rights group and were told that Ms. Galindo operated a stash house very similar to the
one that had been raided in the fall of 2001 by the Cambodian police that actually started
the moratorium rolling. Myself and my partner went 3 hours outside Phnom Penh to the
middle of nowhere, and we found this house, and it truly was a stash house. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
As a Special
Agent, all I deal with is alien smuggling so I come in contact with a variety of stash
houses in the United States and see how bad the living conditions are. This was bad. This
was worse than stuff that I’d seen in the United States. There were 16 babies in this place,
many of ‘em were naked. It was filthy. They were covered in filth, covered in feces. It
was, it was a terrible place to be. If it had been dogs in the United States in a place like
this, the humane society would have been called and people would have been charged with cruelty to animals, but since it was Cambodia it wasn’t, and these children were just
products. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So there again, what happened to all the money? And that’s kind of where we ran with
the case when we came back to the United States. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
There again, it’s classic money
laundering what they did. This statue on the other side [slide with picture of statue], we
found this on our second trip over and one of our Cambodian guides said this is
‘Lakshmi’ and we took a picture of it because Lakshmi was the name of Mrs. Galindo’s
shell corporations that she founded. Lakshmi is the Hindu goddess of wealth and greed,
and would have loved to have taken that to a jury that she named her shell company after
that. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
There again, with money laundering it’s great to have overseas bank accounts because
U.S. subpoenas don’t work on overseas bank accounts. So one of the first places they set
up was at Cambodian Commercial Bank in January of 2001 or, [pauses and corrects
himself] January of 1997. This post-it note receipt was found during the search warrant of
Mrs. Devin’s residence. And in there you see $80,000 as gifts. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Well, what Mrs. Galindo
was doing was she would give $10,000 to each one of her nieces and nephews, which
were four people, or her four sons and daughters from Mrs. Devin. She gave $2,000, I
mean $10,000 to Mrs. Devin and her husband and $10,000 to the mother and the father so
it’s $80,000. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So she did that in 1997 and 1998, and then she still didn’t have enough
money for her dream house in Hawaii so she gave an extra $100,000 as gifts until her tax
preparer for Mrs. Devin’s saw the $100,000 and said ‘Woah, woah. We can’t give over
$10,000 a piece to a person within one year.’At the bottom you see $17,000 carried by L
and A. in March. Well, L is Lynn and A is the first letter of Mrs. Devin’s husband. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Coincidentally, five orphanage donations is $17, 500. Well, when she came back through
U.S. Customs, at that time, she declared $17, 540. Later when we interviewed her she
admitted that it was all in crisp $100 bills. So she’s basically hand carrying cash out of
the country that’s supposedly for the orphans, which is eventually going to be for Mrs.
Galindo’s dream house. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So as typical criminals, ‘cause as I say my partner and I are criminal investigators who
come from a background dealing with drug dealers and other criminals, you always use
money laundering. You set up false companies ‘cause you want to hide your ill-gotten
gains. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
What they did is when it came time to buy the house, the real estate agent said
‘Okay, you want to put it in K-4. Show me that K-4 even exists.” So they had a mad rush.
They had to get a corporate attorney to make up this company very quickly so that they
could send this information back to the real estate company in Hawaii. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And it turned out
that they claimed that all the money was, came from her 4 sons and daughters. That they
contributed the capital and that it was for real estate, but in fact it’s for Mrs. Galindo. She
doesn’t want anything in her name. [Picture of her house] And then this is where she
lives, or lived. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And thank you that all of us now, we own this house as U.S. taxpayers.
United States government, we put a list pendence on it early in the case, and then we took
it as forfeiture. It’s worth about $1.4 million. Huge, ‘bout 100 yards away from north
shore of Kauai, and she’s right near this valley in Kauai, just absolutely beautiful there. And it’s sickening ‘cause after seeing where the children where from in Cambodia to
coming back and seeing where she lived. It was a wake up call. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
During the search warrant we took a variety of things. We took her bank books and other
items, but one of things we were surprised about is, first off, we can’t account for a huge
amount of her money. I can’t trace back over $1 million dollars, probably close to $2-$3
million of her money, but we were able to figure out through the case what she did with
at least $125,000 of this. And what she did, she did bulk cash smuggling. And there
again, I’m scared to carry $50 as an investigator in Cambodia, and yet this frail woman,
very cunning, put over $125,000 in cash into a brief case and carried it out of Cambodia
into Singapore and opened two separate bank accounts. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
[Slide of one bank account] And
this is just the Visa stamp on her passport when we seized it. We could find that she was
in there at the time, and then were able to eventually find these bank accounts that she
opened.
There again, this is, that last slide was July of 1998, and this is now August of 1998
where she gives her sister signature authority to the two accounts. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
This is in the same
time frame; this is a little over a week later ‘cause part of the case we charged her with
‘structuring’ and structuring is a very common thing with drug cases. Drug dealers don’t
want the U.S. government to know that they have a lot of cash so they structure funds,
put in money under $10,000 into a bank account at a time, and there’s no currency
transaction report filed. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Well, Ms. Galindo did this also. So this is after she came back to
Hawaii from Indonesia, and she started putting money into her bank on the 6th and the 7th,
but these deposits on the 7th were at 3 separate banks, and they were done by different
people. She didn’t do all of the deposits herself. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
That same day, or when she was actually
bringing the money into the bank, she told the teller, ‘cause the teller was surprised, ‘Oh,
I’m a teacher in Cambodia. It’s not unusual for people to carry hundreds of dollars in
cash in brief cases.” So even the teller was surprised by this woman. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
That same day, she wanted to make, take out cash in cashier’s checks. And she asked
how can I do it without a currency transaction report being filed. The lady, the teller her,
“Well, you have to do it under $10,000.” So she did. She took out $25,000 from one bank
and went to another bank and got another currency, [corrects himself] I mean got another
cashier’s check for $5,000. Why not get one cashier’s check for $30,000?<br />
Then it turns
out in the end she wanted to use this money for a pearl investment in Indonesia ‘cause
after leaving Singapore she went, I mean after leaving Singapore she went to Indonesia
and thought it’d be a good investment in pearls. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
[Slide of Hindu goddess along with Galindo and possibly Devin] And here again this is
Lakshmi, the Hindu goddess of wealth. This is the actual, they use the company out of
Singapore that all they do is create these bogus companies, and they manage these bogus
companies for you. She decided that she wanted to get incorporated instead of Delaware
like people do here in the United States when they have a U.S. company that they don’t
want much track on. She did it in Samoa, not American Samoa but Samoa. That way,
American government wouldn’t be able to get any banking information. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
There again, you can see their names at the bottom of the page. And this was done about
a month after the craziness with the structuring and the buying of the pearls and the
taking of the money out of Cambodia. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So these were smart women. They knew exactly
what they were doing.<br />
There again, this is one of the cash [shows slide]. When the adoptive parents would come
into Cambodia, a lot of times there’d be 10 to 20 of them at a time; they’d call it a ‘travel
group.’ Well, on this day, Ms. Galindo walked into the bank with over $75,000 in cash,
and that was moved immediately to Lakshmi. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And where do you come up with $75,000 in cash if you’re in Cambodia? Well, I don’t
know if it’s orphanage donations but that seems to me to be the place where it came from. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
She, she had a nice car. She bought, or she didn’t buy a car; Lakshmi bought a car for
$76,000 paid for in cash or with a wire transfer. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
But there again, I said this is classic
money laundering because what she was doing, she was actually making car payments
back to Lakshmi, or she was making lease payments back. Well, that’s another way that
she can get dirty money and turn it into clean money when in fact it’s going back to
herself because she is Lakshmi. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
She did the same thing with the house that she lived in. She paid rental payments back to
her nieces and nephews, even though technically it was really her house. It was just in
these four children under the age of 18 at the time.
And you can see one of the rental payments was paid for with $3,500 in cash. And it’s
like, “God, it’s coincidental that these keep coming up as orphanage donations or the
same amount of orphanage donations.” </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And then the kicker was when we did the search warrant, I came across, later on we were
looking though what we had taken with the search warrant, and this is her social security
statement. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
My God, she makes more money than $20,000 in 5 minutes in Cambodia with
adoptive parents, yet she only reported to the government between 1969 and 1998,
20,000 [dollars]. So, immediately, once we found out about this we said hey, lets get an IRS special agent
on the case and we’ll let them deal with the tax problem of the case. So the IRS dealt with
that, and they’re still dealing with that, but we said this is a great tax case if somebody
wants to work it, we’re not going to work it since we’re not tax agents.<br />
[Puts up new slide] I’ll just let you read this. This is how the government viewed Mrs.
Galindo, and this was part of the sentencing document that was given to the federal judge
in December of last year. [Pauses for the audience to read the document] And if you can’t read it in the back, it’s Galindo was motivated primary [sic] by greed, not altruism as she
claims. And if you watch the 20/20 show she, she still appears as if she was just into it for
humanitarian reasons. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And to answer the question from the gentleman up front about political corruption, this is
another thing that really kicked us, myself and my partner, in this case, once we started
seeing what was going on. The Cambodian government says there are no fees for
adoption, yet the adoption agencies that were using Cambodia were claiming that there
were government fees and they were actually advertising it in their brochures. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So that
was one of the reasons that we were attempting, or that we were possibly going to use
wire fraud or mail fraud charges, because they were using the U.S. mail in furtherance of
their criminal activity or using telephones or fax machines to let this fraud scheme occur.
But their [phonetically] sarkang that’s basically saying, no fees. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Galindo, on the other hand, she was interviewed many times by different newspapers
around the world, and in this article… this article came out after the criminal case had
started and she knew that we were looking at her, she admits in it that [at some point
begins quoting Galindo’s words off the slide] it’s okay to give these guys tips, it’s fine
because these guys can’t live with their salaries, I’m really happy to share the wealth.<br />
[stops quoting Galindo] Well, thank you Ms. Galindo for telling us that you pay bribes.
Well, it’s okay, and I’ll talk more about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, it is okay to
pay small scale bribes to people, the United States government allows you to do that. It’s
called grease payments. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
You can’t pay payments though for a person to misuse their
position of trust, and that’s what we’re going after. That’s why the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act makes it illegal. [Shows another slide] There again, this is a small time person who she is sharing tips
with. But she says I’m really happy to share the wealth. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Well, this gentleman right here is
the president of the Communist Party in Cambodia, [phonetically] Mr. Cheeah Sim, and I
don’t think that what she’s handing to him right now is a prom invitation, it appears to me
to be a thick envelope. So, like your question before, sir, it went to the top of the
government. He, that gentleman before, was a president of a Cambodian senate also, in
addition to being president of the Cambodian Communist Party. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
[Shows slide of “Mr. Lucky”] This was the person who we focused on early on in the
case, after we did the search warrant and we found out about “Mr. Lucky.” And that’s
what they call him, his true name is [phonetically] Veesna. Veesna was on Mrs.
Galindo’s organization payroll since 1996, because in 1996 Mrs. Galindo was declared,
branded a child trafficker by the Cambodian government. That’s what she told people
later, I was branded as a child trafficker. Well, Veesna being a good person, a good
Cambodian public servant, he immediately notified Mrs. Galindo that she had been
branded a child trafficker, and he in fact sent a fax from the Cambodian Secretary of
State’s office to Mrs. Galindo’s operation in Cambodia, at the time said, guess what,
you’ve just been branded a trafficker, and then at the bottom of the page he wrote, please
don’t send anything back to this fax number, I’m still at the Cambodian Secretary of
State’s office. So, you know, he had to have been being paid good to take a risk like that. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
When we did the search warrant we found all sorts of post-it notes and evidence that,
concerning the bribes. And to this day, as a criminal investigator, I want to tell criminals,
buy shredders, shred your incriminating evidence, don’t be stupid and keep this stuff.<br />
[Turns to slide] But this is received $2,650 for [phonetically] Rath, and Rath is the name
for a child, all children in Cambodia their last name is Rath, it means ward of the state.
And with this [slide] for privacy I’ve taken out the names of the children, and when it
happened. But Veesna got $2,600 for processing her, this child’s adoption. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
[Goes to next
slide] This is another receipt from Veesna. But by doing with these receipts that means,
that meant that cash was being transferred by hand. And they, they learned soon on, let’s
not do it by hand, there’s an easier way to do it. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
[Shows next slide] So Mrs. Galindo, this
is another post-it note we took from her place, she gave Veesna $100 so that he could
open up a bank account at the Cambodian Commercial Bank, so that they could just
transfer money within the bank, and not have to walk around downtown Phnom Penh
with a whole bunch of cash in their pocket. Made life a lot easier. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
[Shows next slide] Here again, this is pocket trash that she didn’t destroy from her house.
And early on we thought, okay maybe the payments going to Veesna are really going to
the Cambodian government, and it, everything’s okay. Wrong. This is on her pocket trash
and it lists that this account is Mr. Veesna and his wife’s account, so it’s not going into
the government treasury; it’s going into their pocket for personal gain. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Seattle International Adoptions and others, we actually charged Seattle International
Adoptions as a corporation in this case, and we dropped the indictment later once Mrs.
Galindo and Mrs. Devin plead guilty. But we actually, we went out after the adoption
agency itself, and we’d do that in the future. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
But in this case, [shows slide] they were
actually advertising, this was sent through the mail and also via fax machines, that there
are various government fees due to process your dossier, I mean your dossier. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And I’ll
show you in bigger what it shows, it basically says, hey send your money to me [muffled]
Galindo, and you need to send it to Hang Veesna. I mean, just telling these American
parents who all they want is an ethical adoption to bribe these foreign officials and they
don’t even realize that they’re bribing the foreign officials. It’s out and out. They didn’t
do this for too long because people started asking questions, but this was done early in
the conspiracy. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
[Shows next slide] This is just one page that we took from an expense account book that
we found in Mrs. Galindo’s residence. And you can see, file to Veesna 29. And 29 is the
total of 29 kids, and on this day he got over $50 ,000. What for? Well, it’s bribes. And
this is just on one day in April of 1999. This happened over and over and over and over in
the case. This is how it was run in Cambodia, this was the norm, not the aberration. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Also one of the things that surprised us, and one of the reasons that myself and my
partner came home after 30 days instead of 90 days was we interviewed this orphanage
director, and she admitted in the interview that she only made $55 a month, and for some
reason she showed us the bank book, because she had told us that Mrs. Galindo had
actually deposited $3,005 in cash into her account, like three days before the interview, because she knew that my partner and I were gonna come interview her. So, you know,
you can assume that she wanted [phonetically] Ms. Socly, to maybe not tell us certain
things. Well she did and Ms. Socly told us and showed us a bank book and she showed us
that she opened her bank account earlier that year with a $10,000 deposit. She makes $55
a year [inconsistent with earlier statement of $55 a month], where did this money come
from? </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Okay, now this is more towards, you know, why we’re here today about the babies. But I
wanted to kind of set the stage, because normally if I start talking about baby buying or
baby switching people go, who cares? I mean big deal, it doesn’t really matter. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
But by
showing you how Mrs. Galindo’s organization operated to begin with, with their money
and how they dealt with the politicians, you already kind of have a, a flavor now of who
she is as a person, and this is what we would have presented to a jury too, because we
wanted to show both sides of Mrs. Galindo. Not the one that came off on 20/20 still as,
I’m a humanitarian but for what she really is, a convicted felon. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
In all cases, it’s always hard as an investigator to prove knowledge, but thank god Mrs.
Galindo showed us that she had knowledge. She actually wrote a letter to the head person
of INS in Bangkok in 1999 explaining what she knew about adoptions. And here she
states according to U.S. statutes, a child must be completely orphaned or abandoned or
the surviving parent must be unable to care for the child, and, here’s the kicker, release
the child in writing. So she knows, she knew the law… this is on paper, we had a copy of
this, so she couldn’t say that she didn’t know what she was doing was wrong. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Her sister
was the same thing. She actually wrote a letter that we took during the search warrant to a
Cambodian official in 1999 that basically said, hey, we’re not going to do anything like
this because if we did anything wrong like this the United States government would
come after us and put us in jail. And we’d lose, you know, we’d lose the adoption license.
We’re humanitarians; this is a great business we’re in. So she also knew, knew the law. So it made it easier if we were going to have to take this to trial. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Here is the sick part, cause I’ll start talking about the actual baby buying process. Each
year an adoptive parent is supposed to send back pictures of their child from the United
States, to show that they weren’t used for, to take organs out or that they were being used
as slave labor or nannies here in the United States. They have to send back photos to
Cambodia to show the Cambodian government that they’re in loving houses with loving
parents and everything is fine. Well these pictures are supposed to go to the Cambodian
ministry. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Well, this is what we call a recruiting poster. This was found at a village way
outside of Phnom Penh. And it’s a recruiting, it’s a recruiting poster. It’s basically
showing the other people in the village hey this is what could happen to your child, they
could have a better life. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And what we call people like this is a ‘helper.’ A helper would
go out, find people in their local village, be a local contract person, and tell them that
“hey we can send your child to the United States.” </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Once they had located some potential
people from their village, they would contact a baby buyer in Phnom Penh and the baby
buyers who were orphanage directors and drivers for Mrs. Galindo’s organization, and
they would come out and get the kids. But this was at the very low level of baby buying
structure, the recruitment poster. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
There again on 20/20 Mrs. Galindo claims that she told the United States government
about these helpers and she reported it. That’s nonsense. There’s no, there’s no evidence
that she ever came in and told anybody at the U.S. embassy about it. We researched all
her dealings with the U.S. embassy. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Right here [shows slide], this would have been used for the jury too, to show that she
knew about these people in the villages, who we called helpers or freelance locators. It
says freelance locators who are in the countryside bring kids in. Okay, those are the
people we just saw. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And here’s the other kicker about the [muffled, sound maybe like
‘pasture’]. Nobody wants a child with AIDS or hepatitis; it’s a worthless product so it’s
not going to be brought into the United States. So before a child would even be purchased
from their birth family, they had to be tested, because like I said they don’t want a
worthless product. They want something for their money. They want $11,000 or $12,000.
So here she’s directing her drivers to make sure the birth parents, it says parents go with
child, this is early on in the case, so she telling them at the time that birth parents need to
go with the child when the first AIDS test is taken. That just shows knowledge. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And, I guess when you first hear about Cambodian women selling children, you’re like,
my god, how could they do it. You gotta look at it through their eyes too. It’s not as, it’s
not a black and white issue. It’s very gray. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And, these people are from a third world
country, and they’re presented with the scenario that I’m going to give you now. I’m a
baby recruiter and I come up to you and show you the pictures of how so-n-so is doing in
Cleveland right now, and I tell you, your child could have a life like this, they can have a
better life. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
The U.S. citizen, I mean the parents, U.S. parents who adopt your child will
stay in contact with you for the rest of your life. They will send you maybe $100 a year.
Well, when you make $250 a year as a standard income in Cambodia, that’s a good
chunk of change that would be coming into your pocket. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So that sounds good and you’re
not really giving up your child because we’ll send you photographs and letter, the
Americans will stay in contact with you. And when your child becomes an adult, guess
what, you can come to the United States as an immigrant and you can spend the rest of
your life in the land of milk and honey. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And they believe that, but that’s false. Once a
child comes in as an orphan, there’s no immigration benefits that can be granted to the
birth parents. So these parents still, to this day think that they’re coming to the United
States 10, 15 years from now. And it’s never gonna happen. And then, at the very end
they say oh by the way, we’ll give you 20 or 50 dollars now, we see you have other
children here and they’re doing very bad. This $50 will help you put you back on the feet.
And by the way here’s a 50 pound bag, or 50 kilo bag of rice, your family will be doing
good now. So it’s, they’re able to tempt these women, and these women and men are
thinking that they’re giving their child a better life because of this. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
While we were brought to Cambodia, it wasn’t because of this method, it was the other
method, that wasn’t used very often but it was what caused two federal agents to go to
Cambodia, which is basically kidnapping. They were telling—not so much Mrs.
Galindo’s organization, but others and we were afraid this was happening too—we’ll take
care of your orphan, your orphan, I mean your child doesn’t look very good here. We’ll take them to a loving orphanage in Phnom Penh and they will do much better and they
can go to school and play with other children. And you can come see them anytime you
want, and you can have them back any time you want, especially once you get back on
your feet. Then these adop- I mean these birth parents would go to Phnom Penh to pick
up their child and lo and behold the child’s gone, it’s in either Europe or the Unites States
who was adopted out, basically kidnapping. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
You can’t do this too many times without
people complaining to a human rights group, so this wasn’t, that wasn’t the main method.
It was this method right here [points to slide, I think the one describing first method] how
the children were given up for adoption.<br />
I’ll start running through slides real quickly, because I know that we’re getting close to
the end and I want to hit some stuff before I know you gotta get to your next class. Feel
free though to leave at any time if you need to get to your next class. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
We watch, while we’re there a baby actually being, being tried to be sold. This is at the
good orphanage, we went down there, we’re told by the missionary, you’re not going to
believe this, there’s a lady wants to sell her kid. We came down and watched it happen.
And it was just like before she wanted $50 because she claimed she had just found the
child by the beach and she had been taking care of it for two weeks, and now she wanted
it to go to the United States. But she also wanted $50. Needless to say, she didn’t get the
$50. And it’s more likely that the child was taken down the road to the stash house and
this child could be in the United States right now. That’s the sad thing, because the
moratorium was still going on but there were 400 parents who were expecting kids so
unfortunately this child might be here now. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
There’s a thing concerning nurse care, and on 20/20 Mrs. Galindo said oh nurse care
means nanny. Well this [shows slide] is actually one of the bottom of a page concerning
when you gave up your child. This was typically not done. Out of all the cases we looked
out there were only 2 or 3 where they actually filled out paperwork. And on the bottom
where the signature is located, it says nurse care. This is the translation. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Well, nurse care
is birth mother, it means parents. Same person who filled this out was [searches for
words], I’m losing it now, [phonetically] Mr. Pol. Mr. Pol was the individual who did the
translations. He was also the one who paid people when they bought kids. So it’s
needless to say, it isn’t surprising that he wrote nurse care. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
There again, I’m gonna start to go sort of fast now because I know we’re running out of
time. [Shows slide] This is the smoking gun, as the U.S. attorney would call it, in the case
concerning the receipts that we found at Mrs. Galindo’s house. You see up at the top [of
the slide] $200 for nurse care. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
On our second trip to Cambodia we actually went back and
found the actual baby buyers who wrote these documents, and they explained it exactly to
us. They were given $200 by the Galindo organization to buy kids. They would pocket
most of it and only give 20 to 50 dollars to the parents. And they would also use some of
the money to buy the rice. But mostly it was extra money in their pocket. You see on
there, $50 for a helper. The helper is the person with the recruitment poster, and they’re
at the bottom. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Here’s, I don’t think Mrs. Galindo could explain it either, $8 lunch for it’s the name of the driver plus nurse care. Well that’s lunch and the birth mother. So they
bought ‘em lunch right before they finally took their kid. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
There again, I don’t mean to be cruel, but I’m calling these children products because
that’s how this organization viewed them. And this is what happens with a product that is
of no use. This child was positive for AIDS so it was returned to its birth mother but the
driver was out $100 because it took him two days to go out to the village to get the child,
he had to pay for a blood test. This worthless product, he wants to be paid back, he turns
in this receipt to Mr. Pol, Mr. Pol pays him and then this receipt ends up in Mrs.
Galindo’s residence and we find it during the search warrant. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Like I said, I’m just gonna switch, go through some of these [slides] fast now. Another
thing we’re calling baby laundering was on the paperwork that was going to the adoption
agency, like Seattle International Adoption, it would show that the child came from
[phonetically] Bhatam Bhang or one of these outlying provinces but on the visa
paperwork it all showed Phnom Penh. They were erasing their identities. Even though we
know they came from these far-off provinces, all the paperwork was saying that they
were born and everything to do with them concerned Phnom Penh. This is just five of the
800 children, but it kind of gives you an example. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Mr. Pol, he created all these false documents, these, all the documents that were used by
the Galindo organization were bogus. They were created at this compound in Cambodia.
All the paperwork that’s in the alien files of these children is not worth the paper it’s
written on. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
One of the good things in this, is they actually kept records, meaning on the
second trip we went back and talked to [phonetically] Chim Now. We knew that she had
kept some of the books on the children because these, these birth families think that
they’re still going to get, have contact with the U.S. parents. So they actually write down
all the information. This [shows slide] is one sample page from the journal, and it has the
true history of the child: who its brothers and sisters are, who, where he came from or she
came from, everything that was known about the child at the time. This information
wasn’t passed on to the U.S. embassy, and as [phonetically] Ms. Gogh, one of the
adoptive parents said in 20/20 with a similar book she had to pay $500 at the orphanage
to get it translated so that she would know this information. But now we have this in, I
have it in my evidence locker and the information in here has been slowly given out to
the adoptive parents as I can find them, so they know the true history of their child. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
In the indictment we only charged, like I said, under 25 because she did a plea bargain.
We would have done over 100 if it had gone to trial. But this was one of the things that
irritated us, we called it baby switching, and they did it constantly. The names [on the
slide] are just these made up names that we had in the indictment. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
What it is is Vim is for
some reason too sick to come to the United States, but they’ve already paid a bribe to the
Cambodian government to create the paperwork, so who cares, it’s just a product, we’ll
just use another product in its place, so they use Thea. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Thea comes in as Vim, takes over
Vim’s identity and immigrates to the United States as Vim. Who cares, it’s just an
identity, who cares where you’re from or who your parents are or anything like that, it
doesn’t really matter. I mean I’m just talking as if I’m the organization. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Well Vim gets ....Vim’s still, now becomes a worthwhile product again. Oh, let’s sell it, it’s worth
$10,000-$12,000, so Vim comes into the Unites States also, under his own identity. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Problem: we have two children who now have immigrated to the United States using the
exact same information. Everything, down to the same, they’re not twins, they were just
simply substituted. And [shows slide], this is, I’m not going to go through each one of
these, but this is typical of what happened, we kept finding these, these baby switches.<br />
Sometimes, in the bottom [of the slide] it was because a child had died and they switched
it. The most famous one is there, the middle one where Henga was too sick to come in,
they switch her with Vol. Vol comes in as Henga. Next Vol’s paperwork was created, but
there is no Vol, so Chan comes in as Vol, then Henga, or Heng gets better, she comes in
on her own. It’s a mess, these kids can’t, I mean even if they try to find their identity in
Cambodia they’re already dealing with a puzzle. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And in the case, I only looked at 140 alien files, even though Mrs. Galindo said she did
800, we didn’t know that at the time, it was just a random sample. Well, 18 of the files
listed [phonetically] Klin Kline. They never did any adoptions out of Klin Kline, so all
the paperwork from Klin Kline is basically bogus. And then, with the Klin Kline the baby
switches. 6 of them were from Klin Kline, so we think that Klin Kline was used for, you
know, paperwork for the baby switches. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
And they were, they were also smart because,
like I said Vim comes in under, under one, I mean Vim’s here and Vim’s over here [holds
up one hand to his left, and one to his right]. Well Vim goes to adoption agency number
one, like SIA clients and then the second Vim goes to a different adoption agency, and
they always did it that way. Vim never went, the second child never went to the same
adoption agency, that way they kept it apart. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
There again, adoption agencies in the United States knew what was going on. This is, in
2000, this is a person in charge of the adoption agency said our biggest fear is if INS gets
involved and they accuse you of bringing in children illegally the ramifications for
adoption from Cambodia are serious indeed from any country, it would reflect badly on
everyone, your work is too important to happen. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So adoption agencies knew about this
child switching but didn’t bother to tell the U.S. government or, you know, or the State
Department.
I’ve run out of time, I think this afternoon if anybody’s interested I could do the rest then,
but I don’t want to take up anybody else’s time. </blockquote>
Desireehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00379871315468470235noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-79020171268554874342015-07-11T12:17:00.000-05:002015-07-11T12:17:55.206-05:00Book Review: Hole in my Heart by Lorraine Dusky<div class="MsoNormal">
For many decades we have been working toward a fundamental
re-thinking of adoption. The necessity
of re-thinking adoption is based on the flaws of our cultural, legal and
historical approaches to adoption. We
are culturally enveloped by an adoption savior mythology that often begins with
the orphan and skips the fundamental facts of loss and disconnection involved
in adoption---as though “orphans” were brought to adoptive parents by the
proverbial stork. We still are under a
legal approach to adoption that treats the adoptee “as if” she or he had been
born to the adoptive parents, with officially faked birth certificates---and
unfortunately still in most states original records closed even to the adult
adoptee. We have the horrific heritage of
the baby scoop era, when so many unmarried mothers were forced or pressured
into giving up their children for adoption---a phenomenon increasingly
acknowledged in many nations around the world.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Lorraine Dusky’s newly published book is in part a mother’s
gut-wrenching record of one of those baby-scoop era adoptions. Dusky goes further, however, and takes the
story into the intergenerational realm of reunion with her daughter, the
complex relations that follow with her adult daughter and adoptive family, and
what happens as her daughter also has a child.
I don’t want to give away any of
the story, except to say that the part of the book dealing with post-reunion
relationships is critically important.
This is not a book about “happily ever after” (although Lorraine herself
is definitely a survivor). This is a
book in which everyone bears scars and seeks, not always with success, to
overcome them. The story quite frankly is sometimes very
hard to read simply because it is so painful, and I admire Dusky’s courage in
telling it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Hole in my heart is appropriately subtitled as “a memoir and
report from the fault lines of adoption.”
Indeed, adoption viewpoints have often been divided and stereotyped by
triad identification. The older
adoption savior mythology has often been identified with adoptive parents. First parents and adult adoptees often have
been politically aligned in challenging that culturally dominant
narrative. Dusky’s memoir suggests, however, that equally
important is the fault line between adoptees and first parents---and especially
between adoptees and their mothers. Most of us already know that reunions and the
relationships that follow can be difficult.
Although Dusky of course is only giving us one particular story, her
compelling narrative can give us increased insight into why those relationships
are so difficult. If we are going to
re-vision adoption correctly, we badly need this kind of brutally honest
narrative.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I was honored to be asked by Lorraine to write an endorsement
for her book, and was pleased to do so. Of
course the point of the endorsement was to do so as an adoptive parent, to make
it clear that this is not just a book for first parents and adoptees. Indeed,
as adoptive parents, Desiree and I helped arrange a very complicated reunion
between our daughters and their mother and family in India. While I personally believe in all-manner of
openness in adoption—open records, open adoption, open communication among all
triad members---I had already learned the hard way that there can be no “politically
correct” set of expectations around post-reunion relationships. They are complex and difficult because the
separations and traumas that preceded them run so deep. They are raw because they re-open scars,
which does not make them any less important and necessary, but sometimes makes
them painful even when they are healing.
Dusky’s book confirms what I have seen so often elsewhere---that the
adoptee journey of discovery and identity operates according to rhythms that often
clash with the desires and expectations of first parents, and that at least
some adoptees have difficulty getting past a core anger against their mothers
for not being there with them during their childhoods, no matter how good the
explanations. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Read Dusky’s book. It is one of the antidotes to the simplistic
adoption narratives we have been fed for too long. But don’t stop there. We need more stories like this. Not everyone can and should tell their
stories to the world, but we can at least tell them to one another. Dusky gives us courage and honesty, which is
a great gift and example.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
David Smolin<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
David Smolinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14870233904521418395noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-16742089793732112062015-07-07T23:09:00.000-05:002015-07-07T23:09:03.224-05:00THE INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION DEBATE IS OVER<div class="MsoNormal">
Despite what some may believe, the intercountry adoption
debate is effectively over.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For
years, the intercountry adoption (ICA) debate has involved a continuum
involving three positions. One side,
whom I will label the ICA cheerleaders, sees ICA as the best intervention for
millions of children caught in destructive, dead-end situations with no
adequate domestic solutions. Under the
banner of “every child has a right to a family,” this position prioritizes ICA
as often the only means of providing children living outside of parental care
with a permanent family. The hope was
there would routinely be hundreds of thousands of intercountry adoptions
annually, such that there would no longer be “orphans” wasting away in
orphanages or on the streets. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">On the other side are the ICA
opponents, who oppose any systemic practice of ICA as neo-colonialist
exploitation which takes children from poor, usually non-white, vulnerable
families and communities in developing and transition economies, and sends them
to generally white, privileged families in rich nations.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">This perspectives emphasizes the child’s
loss of family, community, culture, language, and nation. </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Some
ICA opponents interpret the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) as
opposed to any systemic ICA practice, and as incompatible with the Hague
Adoption Convention.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">In the center, between the ICA
cheerleaders and the ICA opponents, are a set of international standards
harmonizing the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Hague Adoption
Convention, and Alternative Care Guidelines.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Under these harmonized and developing international standards, ICA may
be an appropriate practice in the absence of available and appropriate domestic
solutions for children bereft of parental care. </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The Hague Conference on Private International
Law (HCCH), International Social Services (ISS), UNICEF, States (nations), and
many NGOs have developed these international standards in order to reform
international adoption into a safe system free of systemic illicit practices
and compatible with human and children’s rights.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Within
these standards, poverty is not an adequate reason for ICA, and priority should
be given to domestic solutions such as family preservation and re-unification
and appropriate domestic solutions.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Within the context of these international standards there is still
disagreement about which domestic solutions are adequate, and how to balance
building up domestic child welfare capacities with ICA practice and capacity.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
debate over these contrasting views of ICA is over because of changing contexts
and events, rather than due to any success in one side persuading the others. While many on all sides remain just as
committed to the rightness of their viewpoints, these disagreements now have
little relevance for the present or immediate future of ICA. The
most striking and important set of events is the sharp decline in ICA globally
over the last decade. ICA globally has declined by almost two-thirds
over the last decade, from a high of about 45,000 annually to about 16,000
annually. ICA to the United States has
declined by more than 70% over a similar period, from a high of about 23,000 in
2004, to about 6,400 in FY 2014. [For
global ICA statistics, the best source is Professor Peter Selman; U.S.
statistics are available online from the U.S. Department of State.] </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
G<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">iven such small and declining
numbers, it has become increasingly difficult to see ICA as either a global
solution or global threat for the millions of vulnerable children and families
around the world.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Instead, ICA is
increasingly an issue at the margins for those concerned with children
globally, as a solution for a small number of primarily “special needs”
children, defined generally as older children, children with various
kinds of serious disabilities, and sibling groups.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Even as to those categories of special needs
children lacking parental care, ICA is practiced only as to a very small
percentage, and in significant number only in a small number of nations.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another
key set of events has been the recurrent cycle of abuse, in which a nation will
rise quickly in numbers as a source of children for ICA, only to be temporarily
or permanently closed due to reports and scandals of illicit practices. Some proponents of ICA complain that the
reports of illicit practices are sensationalized and exaggerated, while others
(such as myself) argue that the illicit practices have often been
systemic. Either way, the damage to ICA’s
reputation due to such reports has been substantial, with impacted States
closing temporarily or permanently, and other States reluctant to open to ICA
due to concerns over illicit practices.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
debate is over because, at least for now, very few on any side of the debate
actually believe that the numbers will rise substantially anytime in the
foreseeable future. Instead, the
infrastructure of agencies and organizations built around large-scale ICA are
being dismantled. In the United States,
perhaps as many as four hundred international adoption agencies have
closed. One of the most symbolic signs
of this decline in ICA numbers and agencies has been the announcement that the
Joint Council on International Children’s Services (JCICS) was to close as of
June 30<sup>th</sup>, 2015. At its most
influential, JCICS could unapologetically be the primary voice and trade
organizations for ICA agencies in the United States. Over the last years of decline, JCICS tried
to re-invent itself as representing international children’s services
generally, rather than ICA in particular.
Its closure represents the difficulties of entities built around ICA
becoming credible spokespersons and experts for children’s services beyond ICA. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To be
clear, although I have been repeatedly characterized by some as an opponent of
ICA, I represent the middle position of international standards. The attempts by some ICA cheerleaders to
marginalize me, and their apparent frustration over the frequent use and
acceptance of my own work internationally, is a small sign of the failed
strategy and vision of the U.S. based ICA cheerleaders. In essence, many ICA cheerleaders lumped
proponents of international standards together with ICA opponents. In essence, ICA cheerleaders tried to
promote ICA while treating many of the most important actors and stakeholders
involved in ICA as their enemies. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Indeed, the ICA movement in the
last decade increasingly saw devils, obstacles, and opponents everywhere:</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">in UNICEF, HCCH, the Hague Adoption
Convention, human rights organizations, the U.S. State Department, most States
of Origin, adoptee and first parent organizations, and academics such as
myself.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Such a strategy, while it
created some short term gains, was destined to fail, for it sought to
marginalize and sidestep groups and persons essential to any successful ICA system.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">ICA as a lawful system requires
international actors such as States, international organizations and NGOs, for
you literally cannot do lawful ICA without both States of Origin and Receiving
States acting, and organizations like UNICEF, HCCH, ISS, and significant NGOs
and human rights actors are a part of the fabric, context, and connections of
international society.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">ICA cannot
function effectively by marginalizing the adoptees who are its purported
beneficiaries.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">ICA could never be
successful by trying to slay messengers (such as myself) who have served in
effect as whistle-blowers about illicit practices, for without proper
intelligence about what was going wrong on the ground the system becomes
incapable of effective self-correction.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Many ICA cheerleaders treated
virtually anyone who clouded the simplistic savior narrative of ICA as an
opponent and subject to marginalization, shaming, and silencing, with the
result that proponents lost touch with reality and with the capacity to create
a sustainable ICA system.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Instead, the
ICA movement within the USA created an echo-chamber of powerful actors,
including some within the government and legislature, the Congressional
Coalition on Adoption Institute, JCICS, ICA agencies, the National Council for
Adoption (NCFA), the Center for Adoption Policy, the Christian Alliance for
Orphans (CAFO), and Together for Adoption.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">These individuals and groups
constantly consulted with one another but engaged with most others in the
adoption communities as though they were outsiders or enemies.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Perhaps
the underlying glue that bound these groups together, at least in the United
States, was an implicit alliance between adoption agencies, prospective
adoptive parents (PAPs), and adoptive parents (APs).</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">While of course some agencies and some adoptive
parents (such as myself) dissented, the ICA cheerleading movement was largely
built upon the synergy and worldview generated by agencies, PAPS, and APs.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Innumerable e-mail and social media groups
dominated by agencies, PAPs, and APs both promulgated the ICA cheerleading
orthodoxy, and silenced and shamed dissenters.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Certainly some within these groups
in the last years attempted to open up broader dialogues---I credit
particularly Tom DiFilipo of JCICS and Jedd Medefind of CAFO, among others. </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Nonetheless, the ICA cheerleaders as a movement
never sufficiently differentiated between the broad middle that saw ICA through
the lens of the developing international standards, and those who were
ideologically opposed to any systemic practice of ICA.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Thus, the ICA cheerleaders never succeeded
in treating the critical middle as truly equal partners, nor the international system as an indispensable means for
reforming and sustaining ICA practice.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">More deeply, the ICA movement never was
willing to look at the evidence sufficiently to question its presupposition
that illicit practices were a mostly insignificant distraction from the noble
purpose of rescuing children.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The close
connections between ICA cheerleaders and agencies made their movement in effect
a lobbying arm of the agencies.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">In that
context, the aversion of most agencies to strict rules on finances and
accountability became in effect the position of ICA cheerleaders, with
disastrous consequences for ICA practice in many vulnerable nations such as
Guatemala, Nepal, Ethiopia, DRC (Congo), and Uganda.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Perhaps the U.S. adoption movement
believed it had the power to enforce its will on the world, in defiance of the
basic structures of international relations and law.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">If so, that hubris has been proven false.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">One of the final nails in that coffin was
the failure of the proposed Children in Families First (CHIFF) legislation,
along with the failure of Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, its most
important advocate, to win re-election in 2014.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">CHIFF seemed to be an attempt to both inject
new federal money into ICA agencies in the U.S. in order to sustain their
survival, and to force other nations to classify millions of children as
eligible for ICA in defiance of international standards for adoptability.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The desperate hope that the U.S. could force
open international access to children around the world through mere domestic
legislation, in defiance of developments in international law and society, shows
the mindset of the movement as bent to practice ICA despite, rather than
through, the structures of international law and governance.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Indeed, the international context
for ICA makes it increasingly unlikely that the U.S. would or could attempt to
impose its will in the manner envisioned by CHIFF. </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">For me, this was made even clearer by the
recent Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Hague Adoption
Convention, held in June of this year.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The event is facilitated approximately every
five years by HCCH, and is a diplomatic meeting of governments, with some
representation of international organizations.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">There were approximately seventy nations represented in 2015. </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">I have
been honored in the last two Special Commissions (2015 and 2010) to participate
as an Independent Expert/Observer, and each time was honored with the
opportunity to make a presentation on illicit practices.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Having
observed these last two Special Commissions, I was impressed by the growing
self-confidence of the States of Origin.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Increasingly, they seem to be cooperating among themselves, particularly
in regional blocks, in helping one another to implement improved practices
according to both international standards and their own national and regional
cultures and perspectives.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Increasingly,
States of Origin seem willing to assert themselves and their own perspectives
and concerns, rather than deferring to Receiving States or others.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">While the United States is certainly a very
important actor which advocates its positions eloquently and effectively, the
United States is certainly not in a position to dictate, even if that were its
policy (which, I presume, it is not).</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The United States instead effectively works cooperatively with other
governments and with the Permanent Bureau of HCCH. HCCH itself carefully
facilitates discussions among the Receiving States and States of Origin,
seeking consensus.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The dream of CHIFF, that a single
act of legislation by the United States Congress could force the United States
government to somehow dictate definitions and practices regarding which
children are deemed eligible for ICA globally, contrary to current
international standards, makes no sense within this global context of
international law and cooperation.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Of
course such an attempt would validate the views of those who see in ICA a
neo-colonialist project, and hence radically increase opposition to ICA
globally.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The fact that so many ICA
cheerleaders, as recently as last year, were committed to CHIFF, shows the
failure of the movement to comprehend the global situation of ICA, and the
proper place of U.S.-based adoption proponents within that situation.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">So the ICA debate is over, not
because one side has persuaded another, but because of how events in the world
have overtaken the debate.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The ICA
cheerleaders have failed by their own criteria---the numbers of international
adoptions---and have no credible plan to reverse that failure.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Instead, many of the organizations and people
who were central to the movement have dissolved, left, or are
re-structuring/repurposing.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Of course
the failure of one side does not mean that the other sides have won.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">In this instance, it means rather that the
situation has been profoundly altered, and the terms of future debate and
development altered.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The question is, what comes
next?</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The end of the debate is not the end for the
millions of people personally impacted by ICA, for adoption changes lives
forever.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The end of the debate is not
the end for those who have devoted years, or decades, to ICA, regardless of
their perspective on it.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The end of the
debate is not the end for ICA practice, which continues, even if at much
reduced numbers. </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The end of the debate
is not the end for the countries still in the grip of recent and current crises
over illicit practices, such as Ethiopia, DRC, and Uganda. </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">The end of the debate is not the end for
efforts to assist the millions of vulnerable children and families around the
world.</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;">Hence, what comes next will be
the subject of a future post. </span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
David M. Smolin<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
David Smolinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14870233904521418395noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-48670737453753328992015-07-06T17:25:00.000-05:002015-07-06T17:25:02.241-05:00Keren Riley's Interview of David Smolin About the Evangelical Christian Adoption MovementOn May 1, 2015 David Smolin (law professor with expertise in child laundering issues in international adoption; independent expert for the Hague Convention; and blogger here on Fleasbiting) participated in a session at the annual Christian Alliance for Orphans (CAFO) Summit. <br />
<br />
That session was a dialogue between Jedd Medicind, President of CAFO, spotlighted as an apologist for the evangelical Christian Adoption movement, and David, introduced as a critic of the evangelical Christian Adoption movement.<br />
<br />
In the interview linked to below, Keren Riley of Reunite Uganda asks David a series of questions concerning the Evangelical Christian Adoption Movement, the session in which he participated with Jedd Medefind, CAFO (the Christian Alliance for Orphans), and the broader current situation concerning international adoption.<br />
<br />
Keren Riley's interview of David appears on her blog <a href="http://rileysinuganda.blogspot.com/2015/07/guest-post-david-smolin-shares-his.html" target="_blank">Rileys in Uganda</a>.<br />
<br />
You can go to the whole interview now, by going to <a href="http://rileysinuganda.blogspot.com/2015/07/guest-post-david-smolin-shares-his.html" target="_blank">Rileys in Uganda </a>. Desireehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00379871315468470235noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-75253378294995391952013-11-17T20:27:00.000-06:002013-11-17T20:27:50.940-06:00The Corrupting Influence of the United States on a Vulnerable Intercountry Adoption System: A Guide for Stakeholders, Hague and Non-Hague Nations, NGOs, and Concerned PartiesThe above-titled draft article by one of our bloggers, David Smolin, is posted and available for free download on his bepress site linked below. <br />
<br />
The article analyzes the corrupting influence of the United States on the development and present workings of the intercountry adoption system. A context for this corrupting influence is provided through a careful analysis of the theoretical and practical vulnerabilities of the intercountry adoption system. The distinctive approaches of the United States to social work, adoption, human rights, children's rights, constitutional law and humanitarian intervention also provides further context. <br />
<br />
The article is designed to be practical in providing proposals for those interested in reforming the United States' approach to intercountry adoption and related matters. The article also seeks to provide relevant information for governments, NGOs, and others in nations who interact with or consider interacting with the United States on these issues.While the article provides a clearly defended point of view, it seeks to also take account of diverse viewpoints, both within and outside of the United States. <br />
<br />
The article goes beyond the author's prior analyses of the distinctive problems of child laundering/child trafficking in intercountry adoption, to provide a rigorous analysis of both the global effort to construct a viable, safe, reliable and ethical intercountry adoption system, and the roles of the United States in relationship to that effort. <br />
<br />
This is a draft version in advance of forthcoming publication in the Journal of Law and Families Studies and the Utah Law Review, so there will be some errors. The article is also very long! Comments are welcome below in this blog's comments section. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/14/" target="_blank">The Corrupting Influence of the United States </a><a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/14/" target="_blank">on a Vulnerable </a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/14/" target="_blank">Intercountry Adoption System: </a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/14/" target="_blank">A Guide for Stakeholders, Hague and Non-Hague Nations, NGOs, and Concerned Parties </a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
David Smolinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14870233904521418395noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-67084717982917551502013-09-06T23:12:00.000-05:002013-09-06T23:29:33.754-05:00The Liberal Roots of the Modern Adoption MovementTwo of our Fleasbiting bloggers--David and Desiree Smolin--were asked to write one of <a href="http://gazillionvoices.com/cover-stories-adoption-and-liberalism/#.UiqhN8akomM" target="_blank">the three "cover stories" for the second issue </a>of a new online magazine, "<a href="http://gazillionvoices.com/" target="_blank">Gazillion Voices</a>." (We'll soon be posting more about Gazillion Voices--an effort we enthusiastically support--in another blog post)<br />
<br />
Our finished liberalism and adoption piece is titled, "The Liberal Roots of the Modern Adoption Movement."<br />
<br />
Here are the first few paragraphs. (To read the rest of the essay, please click on the link at the end. It will take you to Gazillion Voices.) <br />
<br />
Please leave any comments you might have either here or at the end of the article in Gazillion Voices.<br />
<br />
<hr />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">THE
LIBERAL ROOTS OF THE MODERN ADOPTION MOVEMENT</span><span style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">by David Smolin and Desiree Smolin<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">INTRODUCTION<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></b><i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Gazillion
Voices</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> provided us with the assignment of writing
something about liberalism and adoption. We accepted the assignment largely
because we agree with the purposes of <i>Gazillion
Voices</i> to provide a platform for “adoptees and their allies” and to provide
topics and content that will “reframe and reshape the conversation about
adoption.” We like to think that we are among the allies! Nonetheless, the
topic is awkward for us for several reasons. First, as long-term critics of
adoption systems, we have tried to appeal to legal rules or broadly shared values,
rather than to a narrow set of values that appeal primarily only to a specific
group. The primary exception, our work on the evangelical Christian adoption
movement, involves us as evangelicals critiquing evangelicals, using the
religious beliefs we share with that group as a common basis for communication.
Second, while we would characterize ourselves as political moderates, it would
be more accurate to say that most of our adult lives have been spent in
difficult spaces between political and other contesting groups. Unfortunately,
in addressing the subject of liberalism and adoption we are stepping into new
territory likely to make even more people unhappy with us. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> Adoptees,
of course, like all people, run the
spectrum of political, cultural, and religious perspectives. Nonetheless, much
activist adoptee discourse critiquing various aspects of adoption has employed
popular or scholarly language that is progressive, liberal, or “left” in rhetoric,
reference, and tone. Added to this tendency has been the new wave of largely
progressive critique of the recent evangelical Christian adoption movement. Further,
activists addressing the long history and current circumstance of Korean
adoptions are often reacting against elements of American and Korean culture
and practice that are variously religious, conservative, and traditionalist. All
of this can give the impression that
disputes over adoption, or specific aspects like transracial or intercountry
adoption, are primarily left-right disputes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"> We
argue, to the contrary, that the modern adoption movement has become embedded
in all major streams of American culture. (In referring to the “modern adoption
movement,” we are focusing on the popularization and expansion of adoption in
the post-World War II era, including both intercountry adoption and domestic
adoption.) Indeed, liberal and progressive thought is at the center of the
modern adoption movement. Thus, any attempt to “reframe and reshape the
conversation about adoption,” as <i>Gazillion
Voices</i> and many others seek to do, must address the liberal roots of the
modern adoption movement. We further challenge activist “adoptees and allies”
who identify themselves as progressive, liberal, or left politically, to take
the lead in critiquing the role of their own self-identified
cultural/political/religious paradigms in the modern adoption movement. Adoption
discourse that merely reinforces religious, political, or cultural identities
and prejudices will become swallowed up in the broader fragmentation of
cultural and religious values, and will do little to actually reform
adoption. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">CONTEXTS<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Politics, religion, and
culture have become embedded in intertwined identifies defined in opposition to
stereotyped images of enemy others. One such polarization is between secular
liberals and evangelical Christians, who so often vilify one another. Yet, as to adoption,
secular liberals and evangelical Christians fundamentally agree and, indeed,
have agreed for years. This agreement is sometimes hidden by differences in
vocabulary and justifications, with each side using rhetoric that the other may
sometimes find repugnant. The agreement across this polarized divide is a part
of a broader American consensus on adoption, from which each group draws.
Americans share a common understanding of what adoption is, a common belief in
the “facts” of adoption, a common view of themselves and the “other” in relation
to adoption, and a common undifferentiated belief in adoption as the best
solution to many child welfare problems. This American understanding reflects a
naive blindness to the roles of self-interest in adoption, a disinterest in the
power/privilege/gender inequality/class/wealth-differentials that drive and
have always driven adoption, as we understand it, and a common ignorance of the
history of the institution of adoption.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<a href="http://gazillionvoices.com/the-liberal-roots-of-the-modern-adoption-movement/#.UiqhR8akomM" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; text-indent: 0.5in;" target="_blank">Click here to continue reading this essay on Gazillion Voices.</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />Desireehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00379871315468470235noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-20004490226153689082013-08-16T22:14:00.000-05:002013-08-16T22:14:18.478-05:00The "Baby Veronica" Case and the Abuse of Adoption<div class="MsoNormal">
Amidst the conflicting claims regarding the actions and
character of the parties contending for custody of almost-four year old Veronica,
it is the undisputed facts that seem most significant. Dusten Brown is Veronica’s father. Dusten Brown has fought for Veronica from the
time, when she was four months old, that he became aware that Veronica’s mother
wanted to place her for adoption. (There
is much dispute about what happened during the pregnancy and in those first
four months, but no substantive dispute about what happened since then.) The adoptive parents had the opportunity to
let go then, at four months, with comparatively little trauma to Veronica, but
instead fought in court against Dusten, delaying the handover of Vernonica to her father until
she was 27 months old. It is further
undisputed that Dusten, along with his parents and wife, form a loving and
successful family environment for Veronica, and that she has thrived with them
for the last 19 months.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Whatever
the law may say, ethically the result is clear:
Veronica should remain with her family.
This is true not only because it
would be traumatic for her to be moved, again, although that is certainly
relevant. More fundamentally, Veronica
should remain with her father and family because adoption should never be used
to take children away from a loving family.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Remember
when adoption was supposed to about providing families for “orphan” children,
or for children from abuse or neglect so severe that, after reasonable efforts
to rehabilitate and preserve the family, there was no way to make the family a
reasonably safe place? Unfortunately,
adoption all too often has become about the desire of adoptive parents to
parent, rather than the needs of a child for a home. There is nothing wrong with wanting to
parent a child, but everything wrong with taking someone else’s child to do
so. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
Veronica case is distinctive because of the issues surrounding tribal
citizenship and the Indian Child Welfare Act, but the basic scenario of
adoptive families fighting to wrest or retain children from original family
members is all too commonplace. It is
very unfortunate that the law too often is structured to side with adoptive
parents in these settings. However, it
is even more unfortunate that adoptive parents who have a child for a few days,
weeks, or months before becoming aware that the original mother or father want
the child, feel justified in fighting to keep what they deem as “their”
child. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In this
case, it is particularly unjust that the adoptive couple have sought, and the
South Carolina courts granted, an order taking Veronica from her father and
family, without even a best interests hearing.
It is ironic that the adoptive parents make the argument that the
transfer should be done quickly for Veronica’s sake, when in terms of
Veronica’s best interests there is no indication that the transfer should take
place at all. Indeed, if the adoptive couple had wanted to
minimize Veronica’s trauma they would have returned the child to her father as
soon as he sought it, when she was four months old. This
case has become a revealing illustration of the determination of adoptive
parents to obtain, take, and keep children, regardless of whether those
children indeed have a parent and family who love and want them. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Others
have noted a certain religious backdrop to this case, related primarily to
organizations supporting the adoptive parents or involved in the adoption who
claim a religious purpose or affiliation---specifically Christian. Without claiming to evaluate those ties, my
belief as a Christian is that, regardless of what the courts decide as a matter
of legal right, the adoptive parents should allow Veronica to remain with her
father and family. Perhaps they can
work out some access to Veronica, perhaps not:
but they should honor Veronica’s family relationships. Indeed, one wonders whether the determination
to wrest Veronica from her father could be viewed as a kind of coveting of
another’s child, and if successful as a kind of child stealing: violations of the 8<sup>th</sup> and 10<sup>th</sup>
commandments. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
Christian community—and especially the Christian adoption movement-- should see
the Veronica case as an opportunity to establish several fundamental
principles, without which adoption becomes exploitation and sin. Adoption should not be used as a means to
take children from their original family when that family loves and wants them,
and is able to provide a positive and safe environment for them. In regard to the tribal aspects of the case,
it needs to be made clear that the Christian community has no desire to use the
power of the state or law to wrest children away from their original
communities for the sake of “Christianizing” them or separating them from their
birth cultures, as was done so often in the past. This
case is an opportunity for the Christian adoption movement to clearly repudiate
the shameful history of the use of adoption and other means to accomplish a
kind of cultural genocide. This case is also an opportunity to make clear
that there is a strong priority for children to be raised, whenever possible,
by their biological parents, and that therefore biological parents have
priority over prospective adoptive parents.
Once these priorities are established, then adoption can be reserved for
those instances when it is truly needed for the benefit of children.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In
regard to the fate of Veronica herself, of course, I lack access to all of the
facts. I know nothing except what is in
the public record. I can only hope and
pray that the courts and all of the parties will ultimately be guided to a just
result that will truly be in Veronica’s best interests. It has been immensely saddening, however, to
see how willing so much of the media has been to ratify as normal the sense of
entitlement to Veronica that the adoptive parents are expressing, and so
unwilling to consider the claims of a father who has for so long sought nothing
more than to raise his own daughter.
There is something amiss in our cultural concept of adoption that is begging
to be corrected.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
David Smolin</div>
David Smolinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14870233904521418395noreply@blogger.com86tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-43656067893079183182012-06-06T21:57:00.000-05:002012-06-06T22:06:43.147-05:00Journal of Christian Legal Thought Issue on Adoption: Hopes for a Mature Dialogue<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The Journal of Christian Legal Thought, a
publication of the national Christian Legal Society and Regent University
School of Law, allowed me to help put together an issue on adoption. Thanks to Mike Schutt, the editor, for his
courage in publishing what may be seen as a controversial issue, and for his
trust in giving me flexibility in recruiting a diverse group of authors. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The adoption issue of the Journal of Christian Legal Thought is available online in e-mag format; click on the following link: <a href="http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/85b0b978#/85b0b978/1" target="_blank">Journal of Christian Legal Thought, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 2012. </a> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">(The link above first takes you to the abstracts of
the articles as viewed in the print version; to read the full article click the
link at the end of the abstract---for those with a longer version.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The issue contains three articles on the theological
controversy (myself, with responses by Jedd Medefind, head of the Christian
Alliance for Orphans, and Dan Cruver, editor/author of Reclaiming Adoption);
two adult adoptee voices (Mark Diebel and JaeRan Kim), a personal story by a
first mother who lost her child recently and writes here under the pseudonym of
Clara Daniels; and an historical article by E. Wayne Carp, a leading historian
of adoption, on Jean Patton, a Christian, adoptee, and early critic of the
closed records system. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">One message I would hope this issue sends to the
Christian world is that <i>adoption is
controversial</i>, and for good reasons.
The Christian adoption movement has naively recapitulated the rhetoric
of orphan babies and children being rescued by unrelated Christian adoptive
parents, putting a false veneer of Biblical rhetoric over it. (I say false veneer because the Bible itself
does not tell any such story.) Instead,
any fair narrative about adoption must begin with the conception and birth of a
child to a particular mother, father, family, and community; once this true
beginning is acknowledged, it becomes clear enough why adoption is
controversial. Immediately the
questions emerge: was a separation
between the child and her family really necessary? What is the relationship of the adoptee to
their original family (not just parents, but also siblings, extended family, grandparents,
etc.) ? What is the relationship of the
original family to the adoptive family?
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Once a legitimate controversy is acknowledged, what
is the way forward?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">The answer is:
Dialogue, dialogue, and more dialogue.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">From that perspective, I hope this issue of the
Journal of Christian Legal Thought furthers this necessary process of dialogue.
But it is only a beginning. I hope that
we can encounter one another with respect as fellow human beings made in the
image of God---and for those of you who share my Christian faith, as brothers
and sisters in Christ.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">I know some of you may find my rhetoric strong at
times. But please consider: every day of my life I live, within my own
family, the long term impact of deeply exploitative and sinful practices
conducted in the name of adoption.
Nearly every day of my life I encounter those same impacts in the lives
of many others, through personal communications, reviewing new reports of
abusive practices, and continued research.
Then, when I enter the rhetorical world of the Christian adoption
movement I encounter what appear to me to be a fantasy-land of lies and
misleading inducements which continue to harm many. I recognize that most involved are
well-intentioned and worthy of respect---but the actions and rhetoric remain
deeply hurtful. So it my role to seek to
burst the bubble of the adoption fantasy.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">So do not confuse strong words with disrespect.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">I am quite good at listening---indeed, I’ve been
listening to pro-adoption rhetoric for longer than the current Christian
adoption movement has existed. Indeed, I
fell for that rhetoric at one time in my life, and so I understand it deeply. And if you have something to say as well
which I have not heard before, I am eager to hear that as well. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">Do not confuse apparent “negativity” with a
lack of positive prescriptions. I have
plenty to say about what should and could be done to fix the problems. And indeed in my articles I’ve made very
specific proposals. But I know that my
solutions will not be palatable until and unless the scope of the problem is
acknowledged. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">So happy reading, and let’s keep the dialogue going!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">David Smolin</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/85b0b978#/85b0b978/1" target="_blank">Journal of Christian Legal Thought, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 2012</a><br />
<br />
</span>David Smolinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14870233904521418395noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-47919715558915049852012-05-07T22:23:00.000-05:002012-05-08T21:02:23.314-05:00Saddleback Church Orphan Summit: Five Reasons Why Rick Warren and Kay Warren Got it Wrong on Adoption and Orphan Care<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rick Warren and Kay Warren both spoke on the second day of
the Eighth Christian Alliance for Orphans Summit (May 4, 2012), held at
Saddleback Church. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
They
got so much wrong---left out so much that is critically important---that a
response is necessary. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I
intend this response to be respectful---from one Christian to another. The response is public because their stance, statements,
and activism, both on May 4<sup>th</sup> and previously, are public, and go out
to extremely large numbers of people. I
invite a response and discussion, whether from them, anyone else at Saddleback
Church, or indeed anyone at all! </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Before I get to the five reasons they got it wrong, two
observations based on listening to the conference via the official web stream:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
1. <b>For Saddleback
Church, Orphan Care Means Adoption</b>:
Kay Warren made this very clear: their goal is for every one of the purported
163 millions orphans in the world to be placed in a permanent family through
adoption. Rick Warren, in response to Kay Warren’s
passionately pro-adoption speech, summarized it something like this: <b>“When
we say orphan care, It’s adoption first, second, and last.”<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2. <b>The Summit’s Focus
on the U.S. Foster Care System is Positive; the Summit’s Treatment of a Global
Orphan Crisis and International Adoption is so Distorted as to be Harmful<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Orphan Summit gave significant attention to the 400,000
plus children in the United States foster care system, and especially focused
on the 100,000 plus such children eligible for adoption. The Summit promoted the need for foster and
adoptive families for these children. The Summit also promoted Safe Families for
Children, a church based approach that attempts to provide temporary families
for children in the hopes that the original family ultimately can be preserved. Safe Families for Children thus includes an
aim of ministering to the entire family and seeking to restore and preserve the
original family. (The only reference to family preservation
efforts I heard at the Summit was the discussion of the Safe Families for
Children program.) In addition, the Orphan Summit provided useful
information on the special needs of traumatized children and how to parent and
assist them, which would provide critically important context for those who
parent children in/from the foster care system. Finally, the Summit emphasized the need of
the entire church to minister to families who take on the care of traumatized
children. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
From my perspective,
these emphases on the United States foster care system are positive. If the current Christian adoption movement
was restricted to reaching out to children and families in the U.S. foster care
system, or creating alternative interventions to that system, I would most
likely be a fan rather than a critic, I
can embrace the practical goal of providing excellent and safe family-based care for children
removed from their families due to neglect or abuse of the movement, even if I
still have reservation about the movement sometimes downplaying certain
difficult issues. In addition, my impression is that the
theological innovations to which I object come primarily from those in the
movement who have been focused on international adoption. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Unfortunately, Rick and Kay Warren, and indeed the entire Summit,
were very much focused on international adoption. The constant refrain of the Warrens, and many
other speakers, were the purported 163 million orphans in the world. It was in the context of this “global orphan
crisis” that Rick and Kay Warren set forth the goal of placing all of these 163
million orphans into families through adoption. Indeed, it was stated that the math was
“easy,” given an estimated 2.4 billion Christians in the world: more than enough Christians to adopt all 163
million orphans. Rick Warren stated that
Saddleback Church had set and surpassed a goal of 1000 adoptions by Saddleback
Church members, and the goal specified that half would be international
adoptions. The pre-Summit “intensive” on
the “Global Orphan Care Revival and the Korean Church” was focused on using the
missionary reach of the Korean Church to promote adoption both in Korea and
globally. It is in the context of the movement’s focus
on international adoption, as reflected by the Summit and by Saddleback Church,
that the movement is doing more harm than good, and leading the church in the
wrong direction. And it has generally
been those emphasizing an global orphan care crisis and international adoption,
and/or whose experiences come from international adoption, who have been most
active in creating innovative Biblical
interpretation and theology I view as erroneous and unbalanced. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>FIVE REASONS RICK
WARREN, KAY WARREN, THE SADDLEBACK CHURCH ORPHAN SUMMIT, AND THE CHRISTIAN
ADOPTION MOVEMENT, HAVE GOT IT WRONG ON ADOPTION AND ORPHAN CARE<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>1</b>. <b>The figure of 163 million orphans in the
world is entirely misleading in relationship to adoption, as 90% live with a
parent, and many of the rest live with extended family.<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The international adoption movement in the United States,
secular and religious, has repeatedly used statistics claiming well over 100
million orphans globally. For example,
at the Joint Council on International Children Services (JCICS) annual
Symposium in April, an adoption agency ad in the program referred to reaching
“the 132.2 million orphans worldwide who are in need of permanent homes.” Similarly, the Saddleback Church orphan has
publicized varying numbers of orphans, in the range of 143 million to 168
million, with a range of 163 million to 168 million repeatedly provided at the
Saddleback Orphan Summit.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The international adoption movement, secular and religious,
has repeatedly indicated that the estimated 132 million to 168 million “orphans”
are children lacking a family and hence in need of adoption. This was done at JCICS in April and at the
Saddleback Orphan Summit in May. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>This is total
bunk. These global orphan estimates
comes from UNICEF, which is using a broad concept of “orphans and vulnerable
children” which includes children who have lost one parent but are living with
their other parent. 90% of these
“orphans” are living with a parent, and thus certainly are not in need of a
family through adoption, for they already have a family. Of
course some of these 90% of orphans and vulnerable children may be in families that
could use assistance of one kind or another to alleviate poverty or other vulnerabilities;
taking away the children of the poor however, is neither a Christian nor a
humane intervention. <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For documentation, see
<a href="http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/adoption/orphanstatistics.html">http://www.brandeis.edu/investigate/adoption/orphanstatistics.html</a>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.unicef.org/media/media_45279.html">http://www.unicef.org/media/media_45279.html</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=35750443" name="_GoBack"></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.childinfo.org/hiv_aids_orphanestimates.php">http://www.childinfo.org/hiv_aids_orphanestimates.php</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>2. The Movement
Ignores and is Naïve Concerning Abusive Adoption Practices in Intercountry
Adoption, and Thus Promotes the Involvement of Christians in Child Trafficking and
Other Abusive Practices<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Incredibly, at the Saddleback Orphan Summit, and in the
broader movement, there is virtually no discussion of the child trafficking
that has permeated international adoptions from many nations, including
Cambodia, China, Ethiopia, Guatemala, India, Nepal, Samoa, and Vietnam. There
is virtually no discussion of the fact that intercountry adoptions to the
United States are in severe decline, from a high of almost 23,000 in 2004 to
9300 in 2011---in large part due to child trafficking and other abusive
adoption practices. There is little or
no discussion of the pattern by which new nations are opened up to
international adoption, the numbers rise, and then corruption and abusive
practices overwhelm the system, leading to moratoria, slowdowns, and closures. In the rare instances where abusive
practices are discussed, it is to provide false assurances that such could be
avoided by following governmental rules or using good/Christian agencies.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The end result of this kind of extreme naivety about the
current state of intercountry adoption is to send Christians into adopting
internationally like lambs to the slaughter, unaware of the dangers they
face. Christians are adopting children with
falsified paperwork who are not true orphans, in Ethiopia and elsewhere, and
therefore unwittingly participating in child trafficking. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For documentation of these difficulties, see my various
articles on Child Laundering, Child Trafficking, and Abusive Adoption
Practices, which themselves provide many other sources:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/">http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Or view the following documentaries on Christians adopting
from Ethiopia using a Christian agency:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2009/s2686908.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2009/s2686908.htm</a> --- Fly Away Children</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2010/s2834100.htm">http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2010/s2834100.htm</a> ---Fly Away Home</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>3. The Movement
Relies on the Wrong Experts on Intercountry Adoption, and Therefore Promotes
False Assurances and False Information<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ambassador Susan Jacobs, Special Advisor for Children’s
Issues, United States Department of State, was the primary expert on
international adoption presented at a Plenary Session of the Saddleback Orphan Summit. Incredibly, Ambassador Jacobs <b>claimed that in a Hague country we have
never had a problem with fraud or misrepresentation.</b> I will give two counter-examples for this patently
false statement, although many more could be provided:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
a. India ratified the
Hague Convention in 2003, but the notorious scandals associated with Preet
Mandir, one of the most popular orphanages in all of India for international
adoption, dragged on for many years thereafter. See, e.g., Arun Dohle, Inside Story of an
Adoption Scandal, Cumberland Law Review, available at: <a href="http://jjtrenka.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/adoptiondohlecumbfinal.pdf">http://jjtrenka.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/adoptiondohlecumbfinal.pdf</a>
. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
b. China ratified the Hague Convention in 2005, but
significant reports of abusive practices continue. See, for example: </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://research-china.blogspot.ca/2012/04/dark-side-of-chinas-aging-out-orphan.html?m=1">http://research-china.blogspot.ca/2012/04/dark-side-of-chinas-aging-out-orphan.html?m=1</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course, even if adoptions from Hague nations were all
free of abusive practices, it would not solve the problem of abusive practices,
since the majority of the adoptions to the United States are not from Hague
countries, and some of the most popular countries from which to adopt (such as
Ethiopia) are not Hague countries. And
of course Christians influenced by the movement have been particularly active
in adopting from non-Hague countries, such as Ethiopia. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Susan Jacobs is typical of proponents of international
adoption who repeatedly minimize the extent and significance of abuse practices,
and thereby keep the system from correcting itself. The result is the decline in intercountry
adoption, and a constantly expanding pool of victims from a system shot-through
with abusive practices. While
relying on this kind of expertise may make the movement feel well connected, it
is deceptive. These kinds of experts
will flatter and reassure the Christian adoption movement, and in turn the Christian
adoption movement will flatter them with attention and praise. I would suggest the movement expand and
diversify their pool of experts to those who will challenge them with difficult
truths; write to me and I can give you quite a list!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>4. The Biblical
Interpretation and Theology of Adoption Put Forward by Rick Warren and the
Broader Movement are completely erroneous<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you actually read the Bible for what it says, rather than
the meanings we put into it, it is apparent that the Bible neither portrays the people of God adopting unrelated orphan
children, nor recommends that the people of God do so. It
just isn’t there, in either the Old or New Testaments! Nor are the kinds of adoption practiced in
the United States (closed-record “as if” adoption that pretends that the child
was born to the adoptive parents and that the child never had and never will
have a relationship to their original family), compatible with the Bible. The Bible, instead, assumes that the original
identity and biological lineage of the individual remain as important and true
facts. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course the Bible teaches that we are to provide for all
kinds of vulnerable persons, including widows and the fatherless (orphans), the
poor, the stranger, etc. And yes, there
are five mentions of a word that can be translated “adoption” in the Pauline corpus----although
there are no uses of the word adoption in the rest of the New Testament. But none of this adds up to anything like
what the movement claims. <b><i>In
fact, the only way to have a Biblical “orphan care” movement would be have a
“widow and orphan” movement---in the context of a poverty alleviation
movement---because in the Bible and in the contemporary world, the vast
majority of so-called “orphans” are living with a parent or extended family,
and the Biblical call is to assist the "orphan" and other family members in staying together.</i></b> Thus, the interventions for the “widow and orphan” which are portrayed in the Bible are
those which help the widow and the orphan to remain together. Yet,
you almost never hear about family preservation programs or widow alleviation
programs at the movement’s events or in their literature. The net result is that the movement
exploits the very people it claims to assist.
Taking the children of the poor and the vulnerable for adoption is
neither a Biblical nor a humane practice. And even in the circumstances where some
kind of adoption would be appropriate, the movement fails to apply Biblical
understandings of what adoption is and should look like. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For a fuller explication of the Biblical issues, you can read my article, found here:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/10/">http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/10/</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
An abstracted and full version of the article, plus
rebuttals by two Christian adoption movement leaders (Jedd Medefind and Dan
Cruver) will be out within a month; see the web site of the Journal of
Christian Legal Thought or this blog for updates!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>5. In the Longer
Term, it is a Reality-Check That Will Demonstrate that Rick and Kay Warren, and
the Christian Adoption Movement, Are Wrong about Adoption.<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rick Warren is a
marketing genius who has reached tens of millions of people with his
best-selling book, The Purpose Driven Life.
The adoption and orphan care
movement has within a few years succeeded in permeating the American church
with their message. If you compare
their combined reach with that of the Christian critics of the movement, it
would seem that we are hopelessly outmatched.
But none of that will matter in
the longer term: it is reality that will
continue to bite back at the Christian adoption movement, and it is reality
that will continue to prove the critics right and the Christian adoption
movement wrong. In this way, it will
happen for the Christian adoption movement just as it has been happening for
the broader international adoption movement.
For years the international adoption movement ignored their hopelessly
outmatched critics, only to be constantly brought down by reality: scandal after scandal, closed countries,
steeply declining numbers. At some point, rhetoric gives way to reality.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Already the gap between the grandiose rhetoric of the
Christian adoption movement, and the realities surrounding international
adoption, invite a reality-check. It is
almost comic to listen to this grandiose talk of adopting 163 million children,
in a time when international adoptions to the United States have declined to
9300 in 2011---and international adoptions globally to perhaps 25,000. It is a kind of absurd theatre to listen to
the movement’s rhetoric of adopting 163 million “orphans,” when over 90% of
those purported orphans are children living with their biological family. This is a movement that can’t even bring home
9300 children for international adoption, without wrongfully participating in
child trafficking, visa fraud, and production of falsified documents---and they
are going to save 163 million? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I agree with Rick Warren that the church has a mission in
regard to church planting, poverty alleviation, education, and medical
care/healing. I agree that the church’s
mission includes special actions on behalf of the widow and the orphan, the
poor, and the stranger. I just pray that
this tragic/comic international adoption detour will not undermine these
fundamental tasks of the church. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The reality-check will come sooner or later---I pray it will be
sooner, before there are too many more victims of this zealous but misdirected
movement. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
David</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>David Smolinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14870233904521418395noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-38930000657409783892012-05-03T19:52:00.001-05:002012-05-08T21:02:55.308-05:00Saddleback Orphan Summit: Heritage, Race, Identity, and the Costs of Adoption Naivety in a Young Movement<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
While the Saddleback Orphan Summit formally represents the 8<sup>th</sup><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Summit of the Christian Alliance for
Orphans, the evangelical adoption and orphan movement care movement has really
only come into prominence in the last four years or so. One
of the problematic aspects of this young movement is the way it rushes forward
in relative ignorance of many of the hard-won truths about
adoption. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
Among these hard-won truths is the significance to adoptees of
their origins: everything from their original family, to the nation,
culture, race, and group from which they come. We know that while many
adoptees may express little interest in these subjects at some stages of their
life, at other stages they become, probably for most adoptees, subjects of
great interest. Related to this truth is that certain
issues, such as loss, grief, anger, and identity, come with the territory of
adoption, and are likely to emerge at various points in time in the life of
adoptees. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
Incredibly, one of the major leaders of the movement and one of
the major speakers at the Saddleback Orphan Summit, Dr. Russell Moore, in his
influential book, Adopted for Life, was completely dismissive of the
significance of origins for his own adopted children. The passage has
become either famous or infamous, depending on your point of view: <span style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<span style="font-size: 13.5pt;">
</span>“As Maria and I went through the adoption process, we were encouraged by
everyone from social workers to family friends to ‘teach the children about
their cultural heritage.’ We have done so."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
" Now, what most people probably meant by this counsel is for
us to teach our boys Russian folk tales and Russian songs, observing Russian
holidays, and so forth. But as we see it, that’s not their heritage
anymore, and we hardly want to signal to them that they are strangers and
aliens, even welcome ones, in our home. We teach them about their heritage,
yes, but their heritage as Mississippians…..” [Moore is referring here to
people from Mississippi or more broadly the American South.] (pg.
36)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
Moore’s defiance of the received adoption wisdom about the
significance of heritage is clear enough here. Tragically, he is
setting up an impossible dilemma for adoptees, who are required to permanently
repudiate their original heritage in order to be considered fully a part of
their adoptive family. The heart of the movement as reflected by
Moore is not big-hearted enough to truly love Russian, Korean, or Chinese
children----those heritages and aspects of their being must be airbrushed out
of them, so they can be washed clean in the waters of the
Mississippi---baptized into Americanism----before they can be completely
accepted or loved by their adoptive families. Of course for
those whose origins include a racial identity differ from their adoptive
parents, it will prove impossible to remove the bodily reminders of their
heritage, no matter how hard they and their adoptive families try to ignore it.
For how can an Asian or black body become that of a
European-descent white person? (Tragically, some may attempt the
impossible, as illustrated by Deann Borshay Liem’s famous adoptee film, First
Person Plural, in which she, as a Korean adoptee, underwent cosmetic surgery on
her ears to look more like her white adoptive sister.) Would
Moore have his followers say that a Chinese child’s heritage is not Chinese,
but Mississippian---and what would that even look like when the child goes into
the broader world and inevitably continues to look Asian to the wider
world? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
This kind of error comes from anointing as an expert on adoption
an adoptive parent of still young children, who is arrogant enough to ignore
the received wisdom when the mood suits him. It is also characteristic of
a movement whose leaders are often adoptive parents---and especially
fathers---of still young adopted children. Such parents have not
yet lived enough of the adoption life-cycle to understand what characteristically
happens as adoptees become teenagers and adults. And with a mindset
that is often dismissive of any wisdom from outside of the church and prior to
their movement, they may be unwilling to make up for their gaps in lived experience
through reading and listening to others. In short, the Christian
adoption movement too often reflects a kind of willful ignorance of what has
come before them in the wider history and world of adoption. <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
The theological justification Moore provides for his dismissive
approach to the original heritage of adoptees is incoherent. The passages
are too long to quote, but in short, Moore goes from waxing poetical about his
own heritage as a Southerner, and how this Southern heritage is now the
heritage of his adopted children, to talking about how the Christian’s heritage
is found in Christ and not in their natural family heritage.
Somehow, Moore never seems to realize that if this principle is indeed applicable
and accurately stated, then it would demand that he be as equally dismissive of
his own Southern heritage as he expects his adopted children to be of their
Russian heritage. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
Beyond the incoherence are numerous theological
problems. In brief: the Bible certainly does NOT teach
a doctrine of adoption whereby orphan children, or indeed ANY of us, are required
to be dismissive of our original family, nationality, culture, or race.
Quite the opposite----in the very rare cases where something like an actual
adoption of a child occurs in the Bible, the adoptee’s original family identity
and heritage are preserved, and the loyalty of the adoptee to that original
identity is positive and decisive to the story. (Think Moses and
Esther.) In addition, to the degree that the New Testament
even mentions adoption---the five Pauline references----the only plausible
reference is to the Roman practice of adopting young adult males---and in that
practice the original family name of the adopted person was usually
incorporated into their new adoptive name, and the adoptee was expected to
maintain a relationship with their original family. Of course these young
men anyway usually weren’t orphans---adoption was a social promotion and an
honor for a strong, talented, and promising young man, not the provision of a
family to a helpless orphan child. Of course one of the
difficulties the Christian adoption movement has is that the practice of
adopting unrelated orphan children is not something done by the people of God
at all in the Bible, since there is no such law of adoption in the Old
Testament, and the New Testament never mentions anyone in the New Testament
Church ever adopting an unrelated orphan child. For a fuller
explanation, see my paper: <a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/10/">http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/10/</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
For all Christians, there is a call to choose God over our family
ties, where there is a conflict between the two. But that is
no excuse for uniquely de-valuing the original family ties of adoptees, and
there is absolutely no Biblical indication that such is expected or
required. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
In private conversation, participants and leaders of the movement
often will disagree with Moore’s assessment of adoptee heritage.
I would guess that Moore himself most likely will come to a
different assessment as his children grow up, if he has not already done so,
for I assume that he and his wife truly love their adoptive children, and will
reevaluate their stances as they learn from the changing needs of their
children. But a lot of damage has already been done, as reports indicate
that some adoptive parents influenced by the movement are largely ignoring
issues of racial identity and cultural heritage. Since it takes a
lot of effort and thought for typical white adoptive parents to successfully
navigate the issues involved in transracial adoption, and since addressing the
issue adequately may require adoptive parents to change things in their own
lives, providing excuses for not doing so is, practically speaking, very
harmful. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
On May 3<sup>rd</sup>, in the first morning session of the Summit,
when adoptee Ryan Bomberger was interviewed, the questions and answers
reflected the truth that race and origins normally do matter to adoptees.
Just having an adult adoptee present and speaking improved the
approach considerably over that found in Moore’s book. Unfortunately,
there still was a certain defensiveness in how the subject was addressed, as
the conversation was primarily about whether or not to ever permit transracial
adoption, with no discussion of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>how
to do</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>transracial
adoption. Perhaps that will be addressed in the relevant breakout
sessions. Ryan Bomberger made clear that he had been in some
very difficult places emotionally at certain times of his life, but the
relationship of those difficulties to issues of race, origins, and adoption was
left unclear. Thus, the only named adult adoptee speaker at the
event seemed to be there to affirm transracial adoption, and to give an
anti-abortion message, rather than to explain how to navigate these adoptee and
parenting issues. The discussion is ending where it should be
beginning, which is largely a consequence of failing to include critical
adoptee voices who, outside the confines of the movement, have for many years
been usefully addressing these issues. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
I am hopeful that the movement is in the process of circling back
to the hard-won truths of the wider adoption world regarding the centrality of
issues of origins, search, loss, and race, and of how important it is to parent
transracial adoptees with an eye toward the inescapability---and goodness--- of
the racial identity and cultural and family heritage provided by their original
family. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
In the meantime, the movement too often celebrates the racial
diversity being produced in mostly white churches by transracial adoption, as
though that represented a positive achievement for the church. To
the contrary: a strategy of achieving racial diversity in churches through
adoption is an admission that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous observation
that Sunday morning is the “most segregated hour in Christian America,”
remains true. It is still true that most adults choose to attend churches
characterized by the overwhelming predominance of people of their own race:
white churches, black churches, Korean churches, etc. To the degree
that representing racial diversity within the local congregation is a goal,
this represents a significant failure; to the degree that one believes there
are good reasons for having congregations such as “Korean churches,” this
should be acknowledged, and its cost to the ideal of a multi-racial local church
accepted. In neither instance, however, is there
any reason to celebrate racial diversity in white churches produced by
transracial adoption, for this unfairly puts the costs of achieving diversity
upon vulnerable children, while failing to provide the true benefits of
diversity, in which people of different races are required to treat one another
as equals. A church in which most or almost all of the non-whites
are children is hardly a place where those lessons can be learned: at
least by the adults! It is well known in the wider adoption
community that black, Asian, and Latino transracial adoptees adopted into white
families and growing up in churches, neighborhoods, and schools that are
overwhelmingly white have their already-difficult struggles with identity,
loss, and discrimination exacerbated by the stress of<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><i>being the diversity</i><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>in the environments in which they grow
up. It is hardly a brave thing for white adoptive parents to bring their
transracial adoptees into white churches. As at least one transracial
adoptee, JaeRan Kim, has challenged, why instead don’t white adoptive parents of
transracially-adopted children attend churches where the race of the child
predominates? (If you adopt an Ethiopian or African-American child,
attend a black church; if you adopt a Korean child, attend a Korean
church.) Even if such is not always the best or most practical
course, it illustrates the point well---if the parents would find this
difficult, why do we expect the black or Asian child brought into a white church
to find it easy? Why are we so willing to achieve diversity
by putting transracial adoptees into difficult situations? Again,
the costs of adoption naivety are borne by the adoptees upon whom this movement
experiments, in willful ignorance of the hard-won truths of adoption.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
One can expect the Christian adoption and orphan care movement to
mature over time; for the sake of those whom it is impacting, one can pray it
happens sooner rather than later. Such wished-for maturity will
happen sooner if the movement is less defensive and more willing to learn from
those, Christian and non-Christian, who have gone before in living and engaging
the inevitable and recurrent issues intrinsic to adoption.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
David<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
See JaeRan Kim, Some Children See Him: A Transracial Adoptee's View of Color-blind Christianity (forthcoming Journal of Christian Legal Thought 2012). This issue of the Journal of Christian Legal Thought will be available in about a month on the Christian Legal Society web site, and will be announced also on this blog. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>David Smolinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14870233904521418395noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-18690721372245674182012-05-01T09:57:00.000-05:002012-05-08T21:03:37.136-05:00Saddleback Orphan Summit: Can't the Church Do Better Than This?What could be better than this? Stephen Curtis Chapman.
Francis Chan. Rick and Kay Warren. Another all-star cast of evangelicals supporting
adoption and orphan care at this year’s <a href="http://www.summitviii.org/" target="_blank">Christian Alliance for Orphans Summit VIII.</a> (Saddleback Orphan Summit)<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Indeed, what could be better than this?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a Christian critic of the adoption and orphan care
movement, I’d say that getting it right about the Bible and adoption would be
better. Warning Christians about the
prevalence of abusive adoption practices would be better. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are two basic truths that the movement has yet to
engage in a meaningful way:<br />
<br />
The first is
that the Bible does not support the movement’s claims. The movement claims that American-style adoption
of orphan children is a central and Biblical representation of the gospel, and
the primary Biblical metaphor for understanding our relationship, as redeemed
sinners, to God. The movement claims
that the Bible teaches a mandate to either adopt orphans, or assist persons or
organizations in doing so. If you want to understand why I claim that
the Bible teaches no such things, you can read my article,<a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/10/" target="_blank"> "A Scriptural and Theological Critique of the Evangelical Christian Adoption and Orphan Care Movement"</a> and judge for
yourself: </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The second truth is that abusive adoption practices have
haunted adoption for a very long time, and continue to haunt it today. Child
laundering scandals over the last ten to fifteen years permeating adoptions
from Cambodia, China, Ethiopia, Guatemala, India, Nepal, Samoa, and Vietnam,
remain unaddressed, with new abuses emerging in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC) and Uganda. Adult adoptees from South Korea researching
their roots commonly find that the information in their paperwork is
false. Recent revelations of babies
falsely declared dead and then sold in Spain are just now coming into public
view. The baby-scoop era of coerced
adoptions from unwed mothers, with echoes surviving to this day, is an
international phenomenon, impacting Australia, Canada, Ireland, the U.K., and
the United States. The infamous Georgia
Tann baby-selling scandal in Tennessee, which focused attention in the
mid-twentieth century on the problem of baby-selling, led to new legislation
but failed to clarify the line between legitimate and illegitimate uses of
money in adoption. The butter-box baby
adoption scandal, operating between Canada and the United States, focused
attention on profiteering at the expense of the lives of infants, a theme
repeated in the Cambodian and other more recent adoption scandals. Abusive adoption practices have impacted
hundreds of thousands of people, at a minimum, over the last seventy years, and
yet the Christian adoption movement seems to have collective amnesia on this
topic, usually only providing vague admonitions to guard against corruption and
pick a good agency---vain precepts when abusive adoption practices have been
endemic in adoptions from licensed and legitimate agencies, including those
that are explicitly Christian.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another hard truth neglected by the movement: the entire way our law and culture
conceptualizes adoption in the United States---the “as if” sealed records
system that pretends that adopted children were born to their adoptive parents
and never had or will have any other family---is NOT Biblical and is contrary
to the way that many cultures understand adoptive relationships. Yet, the movement does not seem to have
even begun to address the differences between Biblical models of adoption, and
the forms of adoption in which the movement uncritically participates.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’m putting this out there as a challenge, <i>ahead</i> of Saddleback. Prove me wrong. At least teach (rather than ignore) the
controversy on adoption and the Bible. Include detailed and honest briefings on how Ethiopian
children <i>with intact families</i> are
being adopted as purported “orphans” into the United States. Explain how adoption agencies have
frightened and shamed families into silence about malnutrition and maltreatment
in the orphanages in which they work. Talk about the cases of children kidnapped
from their families in Guatemala and then adopted into the United States, and
the wider context which have put ethical and legal question marks around over
twenty thousand Guatemalan adoptions. Help participants understand the complexities
of adoption from China, and the increasing evidence that orphanages have been
buying babies since at least 2000. Describe how American dollars have corrupted
adoptions in country after country, and then explain why the adoption movement
continues to resist enforceable limitations on the financial aspects of
adoption. Talk about the role of
churches in manipulating, pressuring, coercing and forcing unwed mothers to
give up their children during the baby scoop era and sometimes beyond: and include some such mothers as
speakers. Include as speakers adoptees
who are critical of adoption practices, and who explain from personal
experience the identity, loss, and anger issues many of their fellow adoptees face. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
From reviewing the conference topics, one can see that there
are some suitable warnings at Saddleback. Based on the workshops offered on attachment,
mental health and medical issues, I presume that many will hear about the
severe difficulties often involved in adopting post-institutionalized children
and other special needs children. I
presume that many will learn that adoptive families who adopt from the foster
care system, or adopt older children from anywhere, are likely to need special
help and support. Hopefully the movement
has learned not to expect adopted children to be happy little angels grateful
for being “saved” by their adoptive parents.
Yet, the movement’s theology that positions adoptive families in the
place of God within the
vertical/horizontal adoption redemption analogy, while by contrast positioning
the pre-American lives and connections of adoptees as analogous to slavery or
the old sin nature, may make it difficult for adoptive families to understand
why adoptees express loss and fail to be suitably “grateful.” <br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am grateful for the effective “orphan care” ministries
that really have nothing to do with adoption; I am grateful that the movement
is getting much broader than its roots in adoption. I appreciate that some adoptions really do
take some children from desperately bad situations and place them into loving
families. But the fact that adoption
and orphan care can sometimes be done well is not an excuse to gather together
and collectively ignore so many of the hard issues and hard questions. <br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Finally, I am grateful that a Christian dialogue about the
Christian adoption and orphan care movement is beginning, as will be reflected
in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Christian Legal Thought (links will be posted on this blog when it is published). I just wish that this dialogue was already
something occurring <i>within the movement
itself</i> <i>as represented by its keynote
events.</i> Promoting adoption naivety
at major Christian adoption conferences suggests either that the leaders
themselves remain naïve about some critically important issues, or else that
they think it is best to keep their followers such. Instead, my suggestion is to <i>trust the movement and the members with the
controversy and with the true difficulties</i> involved in doing orphan care
and adoption well and Biblically.<br />
<br />
David<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.summitviii.org/" target="_blank">Christian Alliance for Orphans Summit VIII, Saddleback Church, May 3-4, 2012</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/10/" target="_blank">Of Orphans and Adoption, Parents and the Poor, Exploitation and Rescue: A Scriptural and Theological Critique of the Evangelical Christian Adoption and Orphan Care Movement, David Smolin, bepress, publication forthcoming in Regent Journal of International Law, Vol 8, No 2, Spring 2012.</a></div>David Smolinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14870233904521418395noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-65565325908754333122012-04-20T14:07:00.000-05:002012-04-20T14:07:17.998-05:00The Aftermath of Abusive Adoption Practices in the Lives of Adoption Triad Members: Responding to Adoption Triad Members Victimized by Abusive Adoption Practices<br />
<div class="moz-text-html" lang="x-western">
<div class="MsoNormal">
The above-titled presentation was given as a plenary
presentation at the <a href="http://symposium.jointcouncil.org/" target="_blank">Annual Symposium of the Joint Council on InternationalChildren’s Services (JCICS)</a> on April 18, 2012.
Below is a link to watch a slightly modified version of the Power Point slides we used
at the presentation. We corrected some
typos and made some editorial adjustments, but this is 99% the same as what was used at the event. Unfortunately the event itself was not
taped, so there is no audio.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is
important to note that the original context for this presentation is
Intercountry Adoption to the United States. Some of these points may also be relevant to domestic
adoption or to Intercountry Adoption to nations other than the United States--for example, to Canada,
Italy, Spain, etc.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Especially at the event itself, with our own commentary added, this was a presentation not just on abusive adoption practices, but
especially on how the intercountry adoption system, as shaped by the United
States government and United States adoption agencies, is “designed for
failure.” Abusive adoption practices
thus are not merely problems in themselves, but they are also symptoms of a system that
chronically produces abuses and breakdowns in the system: a system that fails to self-correct and thus
is self-defeating. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Further, the point was made that these features of the current dysfunctional system were not necessarily inevitable, but have arisen from specific choices made by the U.S.
government and by U.S. agencies during the construction of the system. The governing rules they advocated for, and chose, created the dysfunctions that have doomed the system to continuing cycles of abuse.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is very much a presentation about the inestimable human costs of
those failures for all those impacted by adoption: not only adoption triad members, but also
siblings, extended families, communities, and even nations. It is also a presentation about a system that
fails to assist or recognize its own victims.
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This presentation was a joint project,:
David and Desiree each wrote about half of the material, and each critiqued
the other’s materials. The process of
converting material into PowerPoint format was done initially by Desiree, although again
the final product was reviewed, modified, and critiqued by both. Overall, the concepts and information presented
represent years of working together to analyze adoption systems.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Comments/questions can be directed in the
comments section herein. Or, if you prefer, our email addresses are listed on the powerpoint itself.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We
certainly do not expect everyone to be happy with these materials and critiques
may come from all sides. Please keep in
mind that the powerpoint cannot embody all that we said; also please keep in
mind the original audience and occasion for the presentation. We had one hour in which to summarize our information and so we couldn't say even a fraction of all that needed said; things were necessarily simplified. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Finally, we do NOT presume to speak for the victims of abusive adoption practices. Victims must and should speak for themselves. In fact, we urged the attendees to seek out the victims' own writings, memoirs, blogs, films, etc. What we hoped to do here was to give a small glimpse into the kinds of problems and reactions that such practices cause. We speak as victims only for ourselves as adoptive parents of children illicitly sourced and given false information. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We welcome vigorous and respectful dialogue,
from which we hope to learn, as so much of what we do know to this point in
time is due to the many people who have shared their experiences and thoughts
with us. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So here, without further commentary, is the link to our Powerpoint presentation. We tried to upload it to the blog in a box, but the translation through Google documents couldn't handle some formatting issues:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/12/" target="_blank"><b>The Aftermath of Abusive Adoption Practices in the Lives of Adoption Triad Members Victimized by Abusive Adoption Practices: </b>Responding to Adoption Triad Members Victimized by Abusive Adoption Practices</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
David and Desiree Smolin</div>
</div>Desireehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00379871315468470235noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-42132503127692790752012-02-20T21:37:00.002-06:002012-02-20T22:38:03.090-06:00Elizabeth Bartholet & David Smolin Debate International Adoption<div class="MsoPlainText">Fleasbiting is excited to announce <a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/11/">a written debate between Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Bartholet and Samford University Law Professor (and our own Fleasbiting blogger) David Smolin. </a> The debate will comprise a chapter in the upcoming book, "Intercountry Adoption: Policies, Practices, and Outcomes" edited by Judith L. Gibbons (Saint Louis University) and Karen Smith Rotabi (Virginia Commonwealth University) to be published by Ashgate Publishing in June 2012. </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">The book can be pre-ordered online for a discount at <a href="http://ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=637&calcTitle=1&title_id=9973&edition_id=13411&lang=cy-gb">Ashgate Publishing</a>. Frankly though, at a discounted cost of $108, it is priced more for serious research and university libraries than for personal or public libraries....which is why we're excited to have permission from the publishers to post the debate on-line where we can all read it. I'll get to posting the link in a minute. First things first....</div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText"><b>Terms of the Debate:</b></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">Professors Bartholet and Smolin were each given the same three questions to answer independently (apart from each other, not knowing what the other's answer would be), and then one opportunity to respond to the other's answers. Strict space limitations were enforced for both answers and responses.</div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">This strictly controlled debate makes clear the two law professors' starkly different perspectives on the law, policies, and facts relevant to intercountry adoption.</div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoPlainText">I imagine that most readers of this blog will be familiar with Professor Elizabeth Bartholet. She remains one of the more active, vocal, and well-known advocates for intercountry adoption (ICA) <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bartholet/">Her many writings on intercountryadoption are either cited or else available for free download on her facultyweb page.</a></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">Likewise, most readers of this blog are likely familiar with Professor David Smolins' writings on international adoption. Some can be found here on Fleasbiting; but <a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/">most of Professor Smolin's writings on intercountry adoption are available for free download on his bepress webpage.</a></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText">David Smolin says about the debate: </div><div class="MsoPlainText"><br />
</div><div class="MsoPlainText"></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">The debate illustrates my argument that advocates for ICA, such as Prof. Bartholet, unintentionally undermine ICA by denying and minimizing the abuses and resisting necessary regulations on money, intermediaries, and agency accountability that could reduce those abuses. Some ICA advocates (like Professor Bartholet) also minimize the significance of the losses and difficulties for adoptees of the trans-racial, trans-cultural, and trans-national nature of ICA, as well as the trauma to family and child of the loss of relationship between child and original family. Although purportedly pro-ICA, I think this approach is contributing to its destruction.<br />
<o:p> </o:p> </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><o:p></o:p>By contrast, Prof. Bartholet classifies me with anti-ICA forces whom she sees as destructive of the best interests of children. She perceives ICA as under assault from such forces.<br />
<o:p> </o:p> </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><o:p></o:p>In the midst of this debate are questions about the numbers and characteristics of “unparented” children (or orphans) in “need” of ICA, the extent of abusive practices, the significance and interpretation of the subsidiary principle and of relevant international law, and the nature of interventions short of full adoption. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><o:p><br />
</o:p>I look forward to comments (I hope respectful even if passionate!) on the debate or the issues it raises. </blockquote>And so without further ado, here is the link to the debate. It will take you to the bepress site page for the debate. To read the debate, click on the button to the left of the photo that says "download." This will allow you to download the debate file (in pdf form) to your computer where you can read it:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/11/">Elizabeth Bartholet & David Smolin Debate International Adoption</a><br />
<br />
Enjoy! And again, as David said, comments and debate on the issues it raises are welcome. Please post those comments here as there is nowhere to post comments on the bepress site.<br />
<br />
Desiree<br />
<br />
<a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/11/">"The Debate" between Elizabeth Bartholet and David Smolin, </a>currently pre-published on the internet by permission of the book publisher (see below) at <a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/">bepress: Selected Works of David Smolin </a>.<br />
<br />
"The Debate" by Elizabeth Bartholet and David Smolin, to be a chapter in the upcoming book,<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoPlainText"><a href="http://ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=637&calcTitle=1&title_id=9973&edition_id=13411&lang=cy-gb">"Intercountry Adoption: Policies, Practices, and Outcomes" edited by Judith L. Gibbons (Saint Louis University) and Karen Smith Rotabi (Virginia Commonwealth University) to be published by Ashgate Publishing in June 2012.</a> The book is to include chapters by the following, many of whom are well known scholars, thinkers, and stakeholders in the field of adoption: Peter Selman; Jonathan Dickens; Kathleen Ja Sook Berquist; Karen Smith Rotabi; Cristina Nedelcu and Victor Groza; Kay Johnson; Kelley McCreery Bunkers and Victor Groza; Kelley McCreery Bunkers, Karen Smith Rotabi, and Benyam Dawit Mezmur; Femmie Juffer and Marinus H. van Ijzendoom; Laurie C. Miller; Monica Dalen; Elizabeth Bartholet and David Smolin; Judith L. Gibbons and Karen Smith Rotabi; Thomas M. Crea; Jesus Palacios; Rhoda Scherman; Hollee McGinnis; and Judith L. Gibbons and Karen Smith Rotabi. The book is can be ordered online for a discount at <a href="http://ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=637&calcTitle=1&title_id=9973&edition_id=13411&lang=cy-gb">Ashgate Publishing</a>. Frankly though, at a discounted price of $108, it is priced more for serious research and university libraries than for personal or public libraries.</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" />Desireehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00379871315468470235noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-32574078312826073922012-02-16T12:45:00.001-06:002012-02-17T08:56:46.784-06:00Finding the Truth & Returning Stolen Children: Journeying through Schizophrenic Interpretations and Confusing Realities in an Adoption Myth-Saturated Society<div class="MsoNormal">This post is a little different from others on Fleasbiting because it deals with a personal question. One that we get repeatedly these days. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">While we don’t owe the world an explanation, I do think that explaining the situation that we negotiated is instructive for understanding just how difficult these situations are and why reform is necessary both to keep them from continuing to happen to other families and to show the need for better help for families when they do happen.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I’m NOT going to tell our adoption story here on this blog. For those who don’t know it, the broad outlines of the story can be found in a <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12185524">July 14, 2007 interview withSteve Inskeep at NPR: “An Adoption GoneWrong.”</a> The story of how the girls that we adopted ended up in the adoption stream is also here: <a href="http://www.adoptinginternationally.com/evidence.php?type=stories&story=0">“An Indian Adoption Story: Stolen Children.” </a> (the story is on several pages, so to keep reading click “next page” at the bottom of each page)<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">So here, in its latest guise (a comment from our latest post which had nothing to do us & our story but was about Chinese adoptions and the US government), is the question we’re most often asked (Please note that I didn’t called the question a dumb question, but that the asker herself wrote “dumb question.”)<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Dana’s Question :</b><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><br />
</b></div><blockquote class="tr_bq">Dumb question: If you know your girls were stolen, surely they have adoption in India: why did you not facilitate your girls’ parents adopting their children back?<br />
I don’t get it. You know they were obtained illegally even though you yourself were innocent of criminal intent. So your answer to a wrong being done is…to perpetuate the wrong by continuing to keep this couple’s daughters far away from them for most of the year?<br />
It’s like that adoption scandal in Fiji where children were also outright stolen. As far as I know not one American family who adopted those kids has bothered taking them home and getting the adoption overturned OR paying for the natural family to adopt back their own children.<br />
It’s nice you’re writing a blog about this stuff. But it’s easy to write a blog. If a wrong’s been done thought, and you could have fixed it and you didn’t, that’s not OK.</blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Answer:</b><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><br />
</b></div><div class="MsoNormal">Dana,<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We did NOT know for sure that the girls were stolen. It took six years to confirm the fact. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And as for returning the girls to their parents....by the time the facts were confirmed it couldn't be done. Even by their younger falsified ages, one was by then a legal adult, and the other was on the cusp of legal adulthood. Legally and ethically, you cannot return adults to their parents. Adults are their own persons, who belong to no one and who make their own legal decisions. And by then, of course, these adults were culturally American and had become accustomed to a lifestyle very different from that of their mother’s rural Indian village, where women are not taught to read, are not schooled, and are married off at 14; these adults had also lost their first language by then. What we did was take each of the girls to India for a reunion with their family. The choice of what each did next in regard to their family and their lives was entirely theirs. As for ourselves, we have remained involved with the girls’ original family since then.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">You could still ask why it took six years for their allegations to be confirmed. I'll try to explain that too.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Because they had been threatened and were told never to tell us the truth, the girls hid the truth from us for the first six weeks they were in our home. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Once we learned of their allegations we immediately contacted our placement agency and requested that they investigate the girls' allegations to confirm or refute them (yes, at first, we naively believed that our agency would be as concerned as we were and that they would investigate).<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It took several months for us to realize that the agency felt no great urgency in the matter; soon too there was another Indian adoption scandal and the excuse that it was "too dangerous" to investigate. Later we’d be told that the truth didn’t matter, but only what the girls believed was the truth. Our agency over years refused repeated requests to investigate.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Busy that first year and a half with the girls' day to day emotionally disturbed behavior, rage, and terror, we also contacted the local mental health professionals our home study agency recommended (this was the only help we’d get from them). The mental health professionals told us to come back in a year after the girls were through the "initial adjustment to adoption" and had learned English. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It became quickly apparent that we were very much alone in analyzing the situation--both in determining the truth of the girls' allegations of being stolen children and also in determining what connection, if any, their emotionally disturbed behavior had to the possibility of them being "stolen children." Without professional help to find out the truth and to set the girls’ behavior and allegations in a normative context, we had a hard time knowing how to understand both the truth of what the girls said and the meaning of their behavior and attitudes.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We were ALONE and IGNORANT and OVERWHELMED. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The only ones willing to help us think through these things and make these judgments were other adoptive parents, and the consensus among these other adoptive parents both privately and publicly (on adoption support lists) was that the girls’ allegations were almost certainly NOT true. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Remember that this was 1998. Adoption corruption was NOT very much in the news and so the possibility that our daughters were illegally sourced seemed unreal and remote. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In terms of the girls’ behavior and attitudes, the consensus (indeed, the assumption) was that our daughters’ behavior was at the extreme of the normal range, but normal nonetheless. (Knowing what I know now, I would beg to differ and see their behavior as indicative of stolen children struggling to come to terms with injustice and a stolen life). <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">As new adoptive parents we were very much in the sway of the adoption myth belief system and very much within the fold/peer pressure of adoptive parents who passionately believed in the adoption-myth, the trustworthiness of the international adoption system, and the commitment and competency of the involved governments to adequately regulate and police the adoption system. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In other words to even entertain the possibility that what the girls alleged was true, one had to doubt or reject a very strong belief system reinforced by a strong community that represented our only help at that point. 1998 was not 2011, or 2008 or even 2005 in this regard. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">[Note that almost all adoption corruption--whether coercion of first parents to relinquish, persuading non-infertile folks to become adoptive parents, or persuading the general public or anyone in particular of the absolute goodness of international adoption in spite of facts to the contrary--involves persuading people of a strong belief system (whose foundations have been laid for decades in our popular culture) and then reinforcing that strong belief system. This belief system is often at odds with other knowledge, emotions, and values and often requires the suspension of the usual protections of questioning assumptions, and using research and critical thinking to evaluate truth claims.]<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I’m not saying that we didn’t seriously entertain the possibility of the girls’ allegations being true and suffer many sleepless nights as a result, just that it was much harder in that context to believe that they could be true without concrete confirmation. Getting that confirmation or refutation proved to not be easy or even advisable. Who could confirm or refute it? Who was willing? <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In the meantime we were told there were many reasons we should NOT believe the girls. And many other circumstances/contexts that made our quest more difficult if not ill-advised. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Firstly, we were told that such claims (of being stolen children) were not uncommon among adopted children; the claims represented an inability on the part of the child to accept the truth of her situation and were essentially wishful/magical thinking used to explain away a mother's betrayal. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Secondly, we were told that the claims might actually be true from the girls' point of view even if they weren't really true, as relinquishing parents sometimes staged scenes to make it appear to children as if the parents didn't have a choice in relinquishment so as to save face in the eyes of the their children. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Thirdly, if their mother HAD relinquished the girls and gone on to establish a new life and a new identity ditching her children in the process (as we were told was common in India), then we (or anyone who didn't understand the culture enough to make inquiries discretely enough) could actually endanger the mother's health or even her life (outing her past to a new husband who would then beat or even kill her in retaliation). <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Fourthly, we were told that the likelihood of the girls' stories being true was low because older children are hard to place and no orphanage director in his right mind would seek out hard to place children, steal them, and then get stuck with them (bad business, we were told).<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Fifthly, the girls themselves were ambivalent about us finding their parents. They refused to tell us why this was so; we could only guess. My guess now years later is that it had to do avoiding the local custom of being married off a year after puberty (overdue & imminent in their cases). <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Sixthly, in terms of us dropping everything and running off to Indian ourselves to research things (which seemed impossibly difficult and ill-advised), it would have been nearly impossible. We had no extended family to help us. We were the parents of 5 biological children ages 2-13. We were the new adoptive parents to two extremely emotionally disturbed children. It was literally a full-time job just to keep the girls alive and moving forward. We also had to earn a living. There is no way one parent could have done everything while the other went off to India.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Seventh, we needed help in India. We did not have an address; the name of the village was not on any maps we could find; we did not speak the language. We did over a number of years ask individuals in the local community with family in the relevant state for help, but always the family members back in India would refuse to do anything. No middle class Indians we could find wanted to wander around rural India looking for the girls’ parents, knowing that a broader adoption scandal in the state had rendered the situation potentially volatile. It took us years to find a local Indian census map detailed enough to contain the name of such a small village; it took years to find the activist for the poor willing to go into a poor rural village, and with sensitivity make the right inquiries. And even then her initial inquiries were rebuffed by those in the village; it took persistence and the right approach on her part to get the people to admit they knew the people involved. We could have never done this alone. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Eighth, the girls’ accusations, while extremely serious and deserving of immediate investigation, left a lot of critically-important, unresolved questions: questions that could only be resolved by finding the family and discretely obtaining the truth. There was literally no way for white Americans who didn’t speak the language to go to a tiny rural village and discretely make such inquiries, for our very presence in such a place would have created a sensation. Again, without help of the right kind, we were helpless. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Finally, perhaps most ironic of all (as I write this to explain why we did NOT immediately hop on a plane and head to India to search for the family) is the fact that there was considerable pressure from the adoption community to NOT take the girls allegations seriously. We were literally told that continuing to consider the possibility that the girls’ allegations were true meant that we were evidencing a lack of commitment to our new daughters—that we were BAD parents. We were told that we should simply buckle down and parent these kids. We were told that there was “no way back for these kids” and therefore the sooner we came to terms with that, the sooner the girls would get beyond their emotional disturbance and settle in. And so, ironically, for years and years the accusations against us were exactly the opposite of your accusation against us. We were castigated for taking our daughters’ allegations seriously and—horrors!—the unmentionable, unspoken implication in the back of others’ minds: that we might even consider returning the girls if they had been stolen. That’s what you call damned if you do and damned if you don’t. The victims of the crime get blamed more than those responsible for the crime.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We were encouraged by the adoption community during this early confusing time to interpret what the girls said as the opposite of face value. If they said they hated us and missed their parents, we were to interpret that to mean that they loved us and really wanted us as parents but were afraid of rejection. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This is one reason why I speak of the adoption myth belief system. How could anyone judge what is true or false in anything when presented with this kind of double-think? And how could a child who actually WAS stolen ever be heard when everything she says must be subject to reinterpretation? And when returning her to her parents is seen as immoral? Three years into our adoption a psychologist actually told me that she could not be involved in our case if indeed we were to find out the girls were stolen, that returning the girls to their parents was even a remote possibility in my mind.—and I hadn’t even broached the subject. The psychologist’s mind was just racing along the implications of finding out the truth.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Where is the normative information against which to judge whether particular behaviors and levels of emotional disturbance are outside the normal range and therefore might warrant setting aside reinterpretation strategies? Are reinterpretation strategies ever correct? Mostly correct? Never correct? Sometimes correct? Who judges?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Are original families unfit to parent their own children if they live in societies that disrespect women? Where does one set the bar? Who’s to judge? By whose standards?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">So, Dana, you see, there were no easy answers. There were only struggles. And confusion. And trying to pick between interpretations when we had little to no basis on which to do so.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If we had received the help we needed in 1998/1999, things would have been very different. The family should have been found, the truth ascertained, and children returned, right then, at the beginning.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">It isn’t easy to write a blog about this stuff. It’s hard. It’s about the search for justice when society doesn’t care. It’s an attempt to get society to CARE by exposing the cruelty and injustice and ugliness of that which tries to pass itself off as good. It’s an attempt to try to break the hold of the adoption myth on our society. It’s an attempt to get people to wake up and extend the same human understandings of emotions, of a child’s love for her parents, and a parent’s love for her children to everyone—even and especially to first mothers and their children. The wrong that was done against the girls’ parents cannot be fixed. It could only have been fixed in the first year or two. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Of course, it’s not OK that we didn’t fix it. We bear the guilt for that even if we aren’t strictly speaking morally culpable (and had no criminal intent in adopting—we didn’t. We were the patsies). And we live with it every day. We were ignorant. We were naïve. Though we were looking for answers diligently, we didn’t find the answers in time. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We are dedicated to ensuring that society is no longer naïve and ignorant about these things. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We are dedicated to learning and understanding more about these things and sharing that knowledge with others. Truth is an elephant surrounded by blind men. I want to understand the perspectives of all the blind men and synthesize them into a holistic understanding. I’m tired of the perspective of one blind man (the adoption industry) being presented as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And I don’t want to substitute another blind man’s truth for the whole truth either. I want to listen to all and synthesize them into an ever-evolving, ever-learning, ever-refined, complicated understanding that can then be used to help control this elephant of adoption so that it stops hurting people and is harnessed and trained and modified (and the more I learn the more I think it HAS to modified).<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Desiree<o:p></o:p></div>Desireehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00379871315468470235noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-84912379989684014842012-02-14T18:16:00.008-06:002012-02-14T19:29:37.802-06:00Vacuous US Government Assurances Regarding China & Child Laundering: Do They Really Think We’re This Dumb ( Or Are They This Dumb)?<p class="MsoNormal">The following <a href="http://adoption.state.gov/country_information/country_specific_alerts_notices.php?alert_notice_type=notices&alert_notice_file=china_2">notice about adoption from China</a> appeared last August on the US State Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs Intercountry Adoption page for China:</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; vertical-align: baseline; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; "><span style="font-size: 22.5pt; color: rgb(77, 77, 77); "></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: white; vertical-align: baseline; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; "><span style="font-size: 22.5pt; color: rgb(77, 77, 77); ">China<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:8.5pt;mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#787878">August 15, 2011</span></i><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:15.0pt;mso-line-height-alt:12.0pt; mso-outline-level:2;vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size: 18pt; color: rgb(77, 77, 77); "><a href="http://adoption.state.gov/country_information/country_specific_alerts_notices.php?alert_notice_type=notices&alert_notice_file=china_2">Notice: Concerns About Information on the Background of Children Adopted from China</a><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:17.25pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:15.75pt;vertical-align: baseline"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#5E5E5E">The press has reported allegations that in 2005 local family planning officials in China, in the name of enforcing the “One Child Policy,” seized children from their birth families and sold them to orphanages. Embassy Beijing has been in touch with China’s Centre for Children’s Welfare and Adoption (CCCWA) about the allegations mentioned in the articles and CCCWA has promised updates on their investigations when they have further information. We are not aware of any intercountry adoption by a U.S. family that has been confirmed to be linked to these alleged actions.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:17.25pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:15.75pt;vertical-align: baseline"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#5E5E5E">In response to these concerns, we would like to remind adopting parents that verification of a child’s eligibility for intercountry adoption is an integral part of the intercountry adoption process. If there is evidence that documents may have been falsified or are not accurate, then officials at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate conduct an investigation before the visa is approved. If you wish to get more information on your child’s background, we suggest that you contact the adoption service provider that assisted you with the adoption.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:17.25pt;line-height:15.75pt;vertical-align: baseline"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#5E5E5E">If you have any further questions about this notice please contact the Office of Children’s Issues at: 1-888-407-4747 within the United States or 202-501-4444 from outside the United States.</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:17.25pt;line-height:15.75pt;vertical-align: baseline"><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; color:#5E5E5E"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">More than 37,000 children were adopted into the United States from China during the boom years of 2000 through 2005. During that time, most (including myself) thought that the Chinese adoption system was almost completely free of child laundering---free of practices that illicitly obtain children through purchase, fraud, or kidnapping. (Of course, there has always been the underlying issue of the role of coercive population control policies as a significant factor in abandonments.) Since then, there has been an unending and growing series of revelations indicating that by 2002, and probably beginning by 2000, there was systematic misconduct in how children were obtained for intercountry adoption. It has now reached the point where these concerns and revelations have become publicized even within China, and where many adoptive parents have become aware of these difficulties. </p><p class="MsoNormal">This places those who adopted from China during these years in an enormously difficult situation, and sets the stage, as this generation of Chinese adoptees grows up, of a generation of Chinese adult adoptees wondering whether they were purchased or stolen children. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In this context, one might have thought that the governments involved would feel some sense of responsibility and ownership, given that every one of these adoptions was approved by both China and the United States. Instead, one sees an enormous face-saving set of denials. Given the authoritarian nature of the Chinese government, one may have expected that in China. For Americans, however, it is embarrassing to see our own government similarly engage in face-saving denial, for it indicates a government more concerned with saving its own reputation than in the best interests of the children and adults whose lives were directly impacted. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Consider the most recent U.S. Government public statement on this issue, posted on the official State Department adoption web site in August 2011, and linked and copied below. Notice the use of meaningless assurances, which one does not have to be a lawyer (as I am) to spot. For example, we are told that various parts of the Chinese government are involved in responding to these allegations and conducting investigations. While it has been true that sometimes the Chinese government conducts face-saving prosecutions that do go so far as to prosecute some individuals, we also know that the Chinese government tends to issue denials that any of the trafficked children ended up being placed overseas for adoption, and tends to minimize the scope of the scandals they investigate, due to their concern with maintaining the positive reputation of their adoption program. Is the United States government really telling us to trust that the Chinese government would tell us if they discovered that large numbers of trafficked children had been adopted into other countries? Do the U.S. government officials who wrote this really themselves believe that the Chinese government would publicize such facts if they discovered them?<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Then, the U.S. government tells us that they are “not aware” of any U.S. adoptions which have been “confirmed” to be linked to a specific subset of these wrongs: the seizures of children by population control officials. A key word here is “confirmed.” The reason such has not been confirmed is that the Chinese government would not admit it if they had confirmed such a fact and the United States government does not itself investigate such allegations once the children have arrived in the United States. Without adequate investigation, such cases can never be “confirmed.” You cannot confirm what you do not investigate.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I will use my own experience as an example. We adopted two older girls from India who turned out to be laundered/trafficked children wrongfully taken from their family. We informed the United States government and the government of India. Yet, <i>neither government ever conducted any investigations of these cases. </i> Thus, even though we have done reunions with their family in India and have documented in detail that the children were adopted without consent and with false paperwork, in an official sense, these remain “unconfirmed” cases. And, of course, our own actions in informing the governments involved and conducting our own confirming investigations is relatively rare. In most instances where adoptive families suspect that the children may have been trafficked or laundered, they are far too frightened to either inform the government s involved, or investigate. And even among the minority of families that carry out their own independent investigations and confirm the wrongdoing, only a smaller minority ever informs the governments involved of what they have themselves discovered. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So, in short, it is entirely cynical for the government that fails to conduct the investigations necessary to “confirm” such cases to issue vacuous assurances. It would be like a government claiming that the crime rate is down after they systematically decide not to prosecute crimes.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-indent: 0.5in; ">The state department further assures us:</span><span style="text-indent: 0.5in; "> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><span style="font-size: 10.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";color:#5E5E5E"></span></p><blockquote>Verification of a child’s eligibility for intercountry adoption is an integral part of the intercountry adoption process. If there is evidence that documents may have been falsified or are not accurate, then officials at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate conduct an investigation before the visa is approved.</blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><o:p></o:p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 48px;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">These assurances are similarly misplaced. First, the visa approval processes the government mentions here occurred before the children arrived in the United States; in terms of China before 2005 there were few suspicions that there was any wrongdoing, and hence presumably no such individualized investigations were conducted by the U.S. Embassy or Consulate. Second, in China relinquishment of a child is illegal, and hence adopted children were all officially “abandoned,” generally without any paperwork identifying their original families. This makes any after the fact investigation extremely difficult. Third, the normal processes for intercountry adoption would involve the United States government simply reviewing documentation of the child’s status as adoptable as provided by governments or others in the country of origin. Where the child is obtained through force, fraud, or funds, false paperwork is provided indicating the child was properly abandoned or relinquished, and then everything proceeds based upon a review of the false paperwork. Child laundering scandals in numerous nations, including China, as well as Guatemala, Cambodia, India, Vietnam, Samoa, and others, have indicated that this normal review of documents process is totally ineffective in screening out children who have been illicitly obtained. <o:p></o:p></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal">So why does the government provide us with these disingenuous set of false but vacuous assurances? Presumably, the government believes that they can get away with it, and can appear to be responding to the publicized scandals in a purportedly responsible way. It is up to the diverse adoption community---adoptees, adoptive families, agencies, scholars, and original families (although usually powerless and voiceless) to let the government know that we are not fooled---nor are we amused---by this verbal sleight of hand.</p><p class="MsoNormal">David</p><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://adoption.state.gov/country_information/country_specific_alerts_notices.php?alert_notice_type=notices&alert_notice_file=china_2">Notice: Concerns About Information on the Background of Children Adopted From China, US Department of State, 15 August 2011</a></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>Desireehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00379871315468470235noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-34293524522768619042012-02-13T21:18:00.003-06:002012-02-13T22:11:51.136-06:00Response to the Christian Adoption and Orphan Care Movement<blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>Law Professor and fellow Fleasbiting blogger David Smolin has recently posted a new article to his <a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/">collection of adoption related articles at bepress.</a> <div><br /></div><div><a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/10/">"Of Orphans and Adoption, Parents and the Poor, Exploitation and Rescue: A Scriptural and Theological Critique of the Evangelical Christian Adoption and Orphan Care Movement"</a> meets the trendy "Christian adoption and Orphan Care Movement's" arguments head-on in order to respond to them.</div><div><br /></div><div>The abstract of the article is as follows: </div><blockquote><div><span ><span style="font-size: 17px; line-height: 15px;"><br /></span></span></div><div><div><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 11px/1.5em 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, serif; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; width: 410px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">The primary purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the scriptural and theological analysis undergirding the evangelical adoption and orphan care movement is patently and seriously erroneous. Thus, this essay will demonstrate that, based on the standards, methods, and presuppositions broadly shared by evangelical Christians in analyzing scripture and theology, the evangelical adoption movement’s specific analysis of concepts such as “adoption” and “orphans” has been seriously deficient and has produced conclusions that are demonstrably false. The second purpose of this essay will be to indicate that these errors of scriptural and theological analysis have produced, and are producing, practices that in scriptural and Biblical terms would be called “sinful” and in more secular language can be called exploitative.</p></div><div></div></div></blockquote><div><div>The article can be read by clicking on <a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/10/">this link</a> and then clicking the "download" button between the article title and the photograph. </div><div><br /></div><div>Desiree</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/10/">"Of Orphans and Adoption, Parents and the Poor, Exploitation and Rescue: A Scriptural and Theological Critique of the Evangelical Christian Adoption and Orphan Care Movement"</a> by David Smolin, currently published on the bepress.com site with publication forthcoming in Regent Journal of International law, Vol. 8, No. 2 in Spring 2012. Additional publication of a shortened version of the article is forthcoming in May 2012 in a special Adoption Symposium Issue of <a href="http://www.clsnet.org/page.aspx?pid=473">The Journal of Christian Legal Thought</a>, published by the <a href="http://www.clsnet.org/">Christian Legal Society</a>.</div><div><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 11px/1.5em 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, serif; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; width: 410px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "></p></div><div><blockquote><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 11px/1.5em 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, serif; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; width: 410px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "></p></blockquote><p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 8px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 11px/1.5em 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, serif; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; width: 410px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "></p></div></div>Desireehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00379871315468470235noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-77704685768800132832011-08-04T13:27:00.033-05:002011-08-04T17:51:54.259-05:00China: 89 Children Rescued from Child Traffickers July 2011<p class="underline">As top headlines in China and around the world proclaimed in July 2011, 89 infants and children were recovered from child traffickers within China during this month.<span> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The 89 children were recovered in two separate operations.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The first, on July 15, recovered 8 infants from a Chinese-Vietnamese cross-border trafficking network.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The second, on July 20, recovered 81 children of various ages from a trafficking network entirely within Chinese borders.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">First Recovery Action:<span> </span>July 15, 2011<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">A Joint Action between China and Vietnam Recovering 8 Trafficked Infants<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Earlier reports of children being trafficked to Dongxing City in Guangxi initiated an investigation by local and Chinese central authorities. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Because this investigation centered on cross-border criminal activity, in February 2011, a joint task force was set up between Chinese and Vietnamese officials.<span> </span>This joint task force culminated in a law enforcement campaign (involving more than 300 law enforcement officers) that began on July 15, 2011 with the arrests of 39 child abduction/trafficking suspects and the recovery of 8 trafficked infants. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This joint Chinese-Vietnamese law enforcement campaign, concerned with cross border crime involving the abduction and trafficking of children, is scheduled to continue through September 15, 2011. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Indeed, since the first news report detailing the rescue of these 8 children, further investigation has already revealed that the same trafficking network had smuggled a total of 21 abducted infants from Vietnam to China during the period between June 2, 2011 and the July 15, 2011 raid. This is an additional 13 children beyond the 8 reported as recovered.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Though the 8 recovered infants were first reported to have been ages 7 days to 10 months, subsequent reports have stated that the youngest two, with umbilical cords still attached, were under a week old. <span> </span>Most of the babies were boys.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Details of the elaborate reported abduction, smuggling, and trafficking scheme have since been enumerated by an Liu Ancheng, deputy director of the Criminal Investigation Bureau (of ???).<span> </span>It goes like this:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Vietnamese infants were reportedly abducted in Vietnam by Vietnamese nationals.<span> Allegedly d</span>rugged so that they would not cry and call attention to themselves, the infants were then reportedly smuggled across the Beilun River (and the Vietnamese-Chinese border) on bamboo rafts.<span> </span>Subsequently, so as to avoid the border checkpoints, the babies were then reportedly transported by bicycle through the fields bordering the Beilun River and on into nearby Chinese towns.<span> </span>Upon arrival in Dongxing or Fangchenggang, the drugged infants then allegedly continued their journey by bus, arriving first in Nanning, the capital of Guangxi Shuang region, and then in the final leg of their journeys, in either Shanewei or Jieyang in Guangdong.<span> </span>The children’s journeys took an average of 20 hours.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">A later article alleged that an obstetrician helped care for the babies while they were awaiting sale.<span> </span>(The report did not say where the obstetrician was located.)<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Some news reports put the selling price of the trafficked babies at several thousand yuan to tens of thousands of yuan apiece.<span> </span>However, other news reports put the selling price of the trafficked infants at a reported 40,000 yuan each (about US $6,215). <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">News reports imply that some of these children had already been sold to Chinese families.<span> </span>There are two clues in the news report that imply that this is so.<span> </span>First, Chinese officials’ commentaries state that the Chinese families who bought these babies will not be allowed to keep them.<span> </span>This clearly implies that at least some recovered children were no longer in transit, nor were they awaiting sale, but that they had already been sold.<span> </span>Secondly, at least one news report includes criticism of removing (at least some? of) these infants from their “adopted famil[es].” <span> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>“Separating them from their adopted family may be a second blow to their young minds” (Chen Shiqu)</blockquote> <o:p></o:p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Obviously, you cannot remove a child from an adopted family and worry about the effect of that removal on the child if the child is not yet with the adoptive family.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">(Some readers may object to the use of the word “adoptive” here to describe families who bought trafficked children--especially when those children landed in families through channels that were not sanctioned by the government (not legal).<span> </span>However, I am simply reporting the terminology used by the articles themselves.<span> </span>And after all, to the child, who knows nothing of how he/she came to be with the only family he/she has ever consciously known and to whom he/she has bonded, what is the difference?<span> </span>It is the same conscious experience for the child either way. In fact, this is exactly the point that those who criticized removing the children from the adoptive families, were making.<span> </span>Of course, this kind of point is exactly that often made by adoptive families fighting to retain custody of adoptive children when that custody is challenged by original parents seeking the return of their children. But this argument of not disturbing children who are settled can cut both ways. The same adoptive families who argue that they should retain possession of adoptive children for the sake of continuity for the child (when their own custody is being challenged), do not seem to worry about continuity for the child when it comes to the child’s loss of foster families, first families, etc. with whom the child had bonded--often as the only family he/she had ever known--when the child loses that previous family because an adoption is taking places and the child is to be placed in the adoptive family's arms…..<span> </span>So methinks there is here somewhat of a double standard of worry about the effects on a child of loss of family, and that that double standard has almost everything to do with the adults’ interests in the situation. It is easy to imagine what the best interest of a child is when you as an adult stand to benefit from this decision coming out in your favor. But this is another discussion for another post, and, alas, I have digressed… And within the context of this story, that is not point. It's just that I find it ironic that that idea should pop up here where many might find it objectionable. The world's a funny place, no?) <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Upon recovery from traffickers and adoptive families, the 8 infants were taken to local hospitals and health centers for observation.<span> </span>At least one news report asserted that five of the eight children were found to have “serious health issues.”<span> </span>Whether these “health issues” were immediate and temporary and due to transport (for example, the effects of having been drugged) or the stresses of recovery (tiny babies have to be fed regularly to avoid dehydration and other ills) or whether they were suffering from more serious long term issues (for any number of reasons), was not stated.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Officials state that efforts will be made to reunite the infants with their Vietnamese parents, and that DNA testing will be utilized to facilitate this.<span> </span>If, however, officials are unable to properly identify the infants, and efforts to reunite them with their parents are ultimately unsuccessful, the infants, according to current Chinese law, because they lack proper verifiable identification, will NOT be eligible for adoption.<span> U</span>nidentified children not ultimately returned to their original parents, will therefore, at least according to current law, grow up in orphanages.<span> </span>Officials quoted in the article seem to understand that this is a disturbing prospect to many. </p><p class="MsoNormal">In fact, Ji Gang, director of Domestic Adoption of the Chinese Welfare and Adoption Center, is quoted as saying that the possibility of ‘conditional adoption’ (which would allow "children whose parents cannot be found within a specified period of time" to be adopted) is being discussed. (Note that this is the director of Chinese DOMESTIC adoption director speaking and that therefore, he is likely implying that children who can not be properly identified and whose parents are not found, would likely become available for DOMESTIC adoption within China.) This idea is of not letting unidentified children get caught in an institutional limbo where they would be ineligible for adoption is echoed in a quote from Chen Shiqu, Director of the Human Trafficking Office in the Ministry of Public Security:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>“We are negotiating with civil affairs departments to improve the laws to allow unidentified children to be adopted”</blockquote><o:p></o:p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">Second Recovery Action:<span> </span>July 20, 2011<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">Involving 14 Provinces within China, Recovering 81 Trafficked Children<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The second recovery action on July 20 was a much more massive affair, involving more than 2,600 law enforcement officers from no less than 14 Chinese provinces, and resulting in more than 330 arrests.<span> </span>The area involved extends from southwestern China’s province of Fujian<span> </span>to northern China’s province of Hebei. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Although some reports say that the two operations together resulted in the “rescue” of “89 <i>infants</i>,” details in the same reports and others imply that the rescued included, not only infants, but also children well beyond infancy.<span> </span>Indeed, at least one photo shows two of the rescued children; these children are clearly not only <i>not</i> infants, but are beyond puberty; indeed, one of the girls, though relatively young, clearly appears to be pregnant.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Some locations involved the July 20th action, do indeed appear to involved the recovery of nothing but infants. One photo taken in the city of Handan shows a line of smiling policewomen carrying 13 “rescued” infants to safety. Most of the recovered infants in the July 20th action are girls, and they are very young, ranging in age from 10 days to 4 months. Of those infants who had not yet been sold to families, some had been in the care of the traffickers for up to two months.<span> </span>At least one report alleged that those infants found in the traffickers’ care had been being fed low-quality milk powder and had been kept in squalid conditions.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It’s not immediately apparent where the July 20th recovered children came from.<span> </span>News reports note both that abductions by child traffickers of children within China are fairly common, but also note that some Chinese families, especially within rural areas, who prefer sons over daughters, have also been known to sell their infant daughters to traffickers so as to be able to try again for a son.<span> </span>One report states that all of the “rescued” children had been abducted. But all in all, considering all the reports, it remains unclear as to exactly where the children had come from. Given the short period of time that had elapsed since the children were recovered, it is possible that investigators themselves may not have yet known where the children came from.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">These children, like the infants rescued earlier on July 15<sup>th</sup>, were given medical exams and then taken to orphanages where to be cared for during the process of identification (using DNA and other clues) and attempted reunion with their parents (if they can be found).<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">That some parent child reunions were already taking place just a few days after the children were recovered is clear from some news report photos.<span> </span>That these reunions could also be emotionally difficult and complicated is also evident. In one photo, a father is shown to have found his twin girls, abducted six years earlier.<span> </span>As I mentioned earlier, though the twins look fairly young, it is also obvious that they are already through puberty, as one of the girls appears to be in an advanced stage of pregnancy.<span> Sadly, t</span>he photo caption states that the father was “reluctant” to take his twin girls home again because he “couldn’t accept what [they] had become.”<span> Readers are left to wonder about the father's decision. D</span>id he take his adolescent daughters home or not?<span> One can only begin to imagine the drama of this family's story. </span> <span>F</span>ault--if it was appropriate to assign any--for “what [the girls] had become” in the time they were away from their original family was not almost certainly not their own.<span> </span>How therefore could these girls be rejected by their own father? On the other hand, one has also to identify with the difficulty of the father's situation. The task<span> </span>of rehabilitating adolescents who may have been trafficked for un-named purposes, but purposes that we have to wonder about, would surely not be easy. And the outcome of that rehabilitation, uncertain. The father might very well be taking home virtual strangers whose values might very well differ from his own and his community's, and yet he would become immediately responsible for these adolescents and what happened to them from that time forward. An extremely difficult and complicated assignment for any parent.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Such is one of the problems of older child abduction.<span> </span>Children continue to grow and mature.<span> </span>They become different people than they’d have originally have been if they had never been taken from their families. The abducted children have in some very real sense, ceased to exist; likewise, from the children's point of view the parents have also become odd and foreign to the people they've become. In this way, the harm done to the victims by traffickers who steal children is inestimable. Time which is lost cannot be recovered, but more than that, that which is done can not be undone, influence/culture lost can't be recovered, and influence/culture hijacked by others can't be erased.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt">What Does This Mean for Supposed “Surplus” of Children Within China and for International Adoption from China? <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Speculation is that this, China’s highly publicized and widespread crackdown on child trafficking in July (and for the few months previous to July) is a deliberate move on the part of the Chinese government to convince Chinese citizens, outraged at the government’s past lack of responsiveness to the “growing tide of child kidnapping” and child trafficking within China, that they do indeed care and are taking effective, concrete action.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This growing public outrage is no accident.<span> </span>News reports credit the growing displeasure of citizens with both the rising tide of child abductions and the government’s inaction in regard to them, with the most recent campaign by parents of kidnapped children to raise public awareness and outrage.<span> </span>In particular, a recent Chinese micro-blog campaign by parents of abducted and trafficked children complained about government officials who ignored and hindered parents from finding their abducted children. Parents complained that some law enforcement agencies refused to file reports of missing children, and that law enforcement agencies, even when they did file reports, often failed to act on leads given by parents. The campaign therefore encouraged Chinese citizens to help parents of abducted children recover their missing children by taking photos of children on the street to help facilitate identification of kidnapped children. <span> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The parents of kidnapped and abducted children have, after years of struggle, finally won the attention of not only Chinese citizens, but also of the Chinese state media and the Chinese government officials.<span> </span>The reality of the widespread problem of child abduction and child trafficking within China is now openly acknowledged by both the state media and the government.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Indeed, the state media itself now openly estimates that up to 20,000 children a year are abducted and/or trafficked in China.<span> </span>According to Chen Shinqu, director of the Human Trafficking Office of the Ministry of Public Security:<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">“Child abductions have entered a phase of high-frequency.”<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">According to China Daily, Chen sees the "main cause of human trafficking crimes" to be the “existence of a buyer’s market.” <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Indeed, many of us who have followed international adoption corruption for a long time, have come to believe that where there is high demand for human children and there is the money to back this demand, entrepreneurs, criminals, and others will arise to ensure that that market demand is met.<span> </span>To believe that it is otherwise is to be naïve.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">China's one-child policy is frequently blamed as the cause of this demand for children within China.<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>Under the one child policy most families were allowed only one child.<span> </span>Combined with a cultural and economic preference for sons, in the early years of the one-child policy, this led to the abandonment of many baby girls as families held out for a son.<span> </span>More recently, as the one-child policy has perhaps relaxed somewhat, and the availability of ultrasound machines has proliferated, sex-selective abortion has eliminated baby girls before birth, leading to a highly publicized gender imbalance within China in the younger generations.<span> </span>As the population has grown lop-sided with boys, families have begun to worry about procuring wives for their sons in future years. Some families solve this future problem by buying girl babies, “child brides,” when their sons are young and raising them to be future wives and daughters-in-law.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The shortage of girls has not raised the status of women; instead, girls have become one more rare commodity within a market ready and willing to buy them. <span> </span><span> </span>Speculation is that far from raising the status of women, a shortage of marriageable women will lead—and indeed may already have led--to greater levels of trafficking of both children and women for sexual purposes and prostitution.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Likewise, as families have been willing to buy a girl child for future purposes, families who desire a son (but are unable to produce one for various reasons) have also become willing to buy one.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Indeed, children, as their numbers have shrunken within Chinese society, are in short supply generally, and so they have become rare commodities capable of fetching high sums.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And as stated before, where the market demands and is willing to pay high prices, suppliers eager to make good money inevitably eventually step in.<span> </span>Thus, child traffickers have increasingly been abducting and trafficking children.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What does all this mean in the international adoption arena?<span> </span>After all, isn’t this a blog primarily about international adoption and international adoption corruption?<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Well, perhaps it means that the story peddled for the last twenty years or so by adoption agencies and the popular media, and the story that adoptive parents still hoping to adopt from China—which I STILL hear from acquaintances on the street—tell about China having so many unwanted baby girls that they’re simply there for the picking, (and indeed, we all ought to be lining up to adopt one of them if we were good Christians and cared about children) while it may once have been true, is no longer true.<span> </span>The situation has changed.<span> </span><span> </span>China may well still have SOME children in need of adoption, but in China, as elsewhere, these children are likely to be seriously handicapped children and much older children.<span> </span>(The advisability of international adoption of much older children will be the subject of other posts.) <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">China’s domestic demand for healthy, young children—even girls (maybe especially girls)—may well be strong enough to absorb whatever healthy, young children are available.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It also means that the idea that Chinese adoption is, compared to other countries, squeaky clean, is probably also dead.<span> </span>Can we honestly believe that international adoption could remain squeaky clean in a country where child abduction and child trafficking is rampant, where orphanages have been documented to pay people for supplying adoptable young children (yes, this has been documented), where officials have been documented to have forcibly removed children (in excess of the family planning quota) from their parents in order to send them to orphanages, where orphanages gain money for every child they place, and where children are such rare, valuable commodities?<span> </span><br /><!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /><!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">If you believe that one, I know a few other fairy tales that someone would like to tell you, and a few telemarketers and scammers out there that would love to have your name and email address. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Desiree<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/27/us-china-trafficking-idUSTRE76Q0V420110727">“China Rescues Dozens of Infants from Human Traffickers” </a><span> </span>Beijing Newsroom, edited by Alex Richardson and Sui-Lee Wee, Reuters, 27 July 2011 <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/2011-07/27/content_12992705.htm">“Human Trafficking Ring Busted”</a> Zheng Caixong and Zhang Yan, China Daily, 27 July 2011 <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-07/27/c_131012902.htm"><span>“Chinese police rescue 89 children in two major human trafficking cases”</span></a><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:16.5pt;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font:major-latin;color:black;mso-font-kerning:18.0pt;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><span> </span>by Chen Zhi, Xinhua News Agency, English.xinhua.com, 27 July 2011<span> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-07/28/content_12997272.htm"><span>“Authorities to Place Stolen Babies in Care”</span></a><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:16.5pt;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font:major-latin;color:black;mso-font-kerning:18.0pt;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"> by Zhang Yan, China Daily, 29 July 2011 <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3909b53e-b857-11e0-8d23-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1TtSbeAiR"><span>“Doctor Helped in Selling of Children to Chinese Families”</span></a><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:16.5pt;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font:major-latin;color:black;mso-font-kerning:18.0pt;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><span> </span>Financial Times of London (source: Shanghai Daily), 8 August 2011 <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/3909b53e-b857-11e0-8d23-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1TtSbeAiR"><span>“China Cracks Down on Child Kidnappings”</span></a><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:16.5pt;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font: major-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font:major-latin;color:black;mso-font-kerning:18.0pt;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold"><span> </span>by Patti Waldmeir, Shanghai, Financial Times of London, 27 July 2011<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019213/Children-young-10-weeks-old-rescued-clutches-Chinese-people-traffickers.html"><span>“Children as young as 10 DAYS old among 89 rescued from clutches of Chinese people traffickers”</span></a><span> <span> </span>Daily Mail Online, 27 July 2011<o:p></o:p></span></p>Desireehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00379871315468470235noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-50455325577596110372011-08-02T08:39:00.003-05:002011-08-02T08:53:56.475-05:00Intercountry Adoption Accountability Project (Part II---Comment and Response)<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p><b>NOTE: Fleasbiting is having technical issues. Blogspot is malfunctioning and refusing to encode a comment button on our blog--despite our following instructions for fixing the problem. So please know know that is not that we don't want your comments--we do--and not that we don't want to interact with our readers--we do. We hope to have this issue resolved soon. In the meantime, feel free to send your comments to us via email or else save them up until we get this problem fixed. Our apologies.</b></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">The following is a comment I received on e-mail; with permission, I am including it here, and will respond immediately below.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>Wow what a terrible story. I am sorry for your experience and do not discount it but you seem to be painting all adoptions with the same brush. Our children were not stolen. There is no need to steal children for adoption because there are thousands waiting. We have seen the two orphanages and several others in the country that our children were adopted from and we know that our children were starved for affection and had been that way for some time. It is horrible that someone would steal children for money.<br />We are the truth. And there are thousands of families who have legitimate stories and legitimate orphans and there are many more waiting. Do not damage their chances of getting out of a hell on earth.</blockquote><p></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">Rebecca Schwindeman (adoptive parent of a child from Russia)</p> <div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span></div><p class="MsoNormal"></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Rebecca’s comments represent, in my view, a common viewpoint, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>While I will disagree with much of what Rebecca has said, please keep in mind there is nothing personal in this.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>My response is designed to respond as much to the many people in the adoption community who think in a manner similar to Rebecca, rather than just to Rebecca herself.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">First:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I have always acknowledged that there are many children adopted who are not stolen children.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I would further acknowledge that the problem of stolen/laundered children is not the major problem in Russian adoptions (the country from which Rebecca adopted).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Child laundering has been a serious problem in many sending nations, including Cambodia, China, Ethiopia, Guatemala, India, Nepal, Samoa, and Vietnam.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Further, the reactions to such misconduct have caused many sending nations to sharply reduce, close, or never open to intercountry adoption, including much of Latin America (based on trafficking documented in the 1980s), Cambodia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, India, Nepal, Vietnam, and most of sub-Saharan Africa (which has never opened to IA, in significant part due to concerns with trafficking, corruption, and scandals.)</p> <p class="MsoNormal">This is where the blame game comes in.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Rebecca asks me not to “damage” the chances of children to be adopted.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Since I am an academic, writer, and blogger with no power to directly impact IA or its rules, the implication is that I need to self-censor.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I have seen this implied and stated repeatedly---that somehow talking about the things that go wrong is what destroys IA.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">My response:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Ignoring abusive adoption practices ensures that the adoption system will never reform; for a system that covers up its mistakes has no incentive to learn from them.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Such silence breeds impunity:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>an impunity which has made IA impervious to reform. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Such an approach would be like running an air traffic system by covering up plane crashes, rather than investigating them and using the information derived to avoid future crashes.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Such an approach also fails to account for the full scope and harm of such abusive adoption practices.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Adoption systems in which large numbers of children moved became infected with large-scale and systematic abusive practices impacting substantial numbers of adoptions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Within those systems, even the children who were properly adopted are damaged, because they and their adoptive families must live with the uncertainty about whether or not they were stolen---an uncertainty that is very difficult to resolve. Thus, most adoptive parents and adoptees who were adopted from affected countries have no way of knowing whether their adoptions were tainted by child laundering or other abusive practices.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This includes, for example, the 25,000 or so children adopted from Guatemala between 2002 and 2008; the approximately 1500 children adopted from Cambodia between 1997 and 2002; the tens of thousands of children adopted from China between 2002 and 2009; the more than 9,000 children adopted from Ethiopia from 2005 to the present; the more than two thousand children adopted from Vietnam between 2006 and 2009; the more than 300 children adopted from Nepal from 2003 to 2010; and so on….</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Systems this seriously broken will eventually break down if not fixed.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And they are not fixed in large part because the “don’t talk about it” approach provides a sense of impunity for adoption agencies, facilitators, and government officials.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Instead of the adoption community lobbying and pushing to fix broken systems, they lobby to keep broken systems going and open.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This leads to a self-replicating cycle of abuse which unfortunately has not yet ended.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Another fundamental point:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>full orphanages do not mean that adoptions are legitimate or needed.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The question is how children got to those orphanages, and whether the children are actually orphans.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Illicit child trafficking sucks children out of families and into orphanages.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Orphanages in many nations are a kind of boarding school and social safety net for the poor.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Thus, the mere existence of large numbers of children in orphanages does not indicate a legitimate need for IA.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">What, then, of Russia, where a longstanding practice of institutionalization has victimized large numbers of children? <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>As I have said repeatedly, I agree that child laundering generally is NOT the issue there.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>I agree (and have said repeatedly in the past) that children held in poor quality institutional care, such as has been the case often in Russia, constitute a serious harm in need of urgent remedy.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>However, what I said in my first “Accountability Project” post applies specifically to Russian adoptions:<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote>[I]ntercountry adoption has all too often approached the delicate task of transplanting deeply traumatized special needs children across families, languages and cultures with all of the skill, competence and care of a drunk teenager high-jacking a car for a joyride.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Consequently, intercountry adoption has also produced a significant degree of wreckage amongst adoptive families.</blockquote><blockquote><br /></blockquote><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">My rhetoric is deliberately strong; but the underlying realities are worse.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The wreckage of the Masha Allen case, the fourteen or more Russian adoptees killed by their adoptive parents, and the Hansen’s family act of returning their seven year old adoptive son to Russia on a plane, are symptoms of the extreme stresses and difficulties in Russian adoptions.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Such were finally brought to light to some degree in the popular press by the June 2010 Time Magazine article, “When the Adopted Can’t Adapt; see <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1997439,00.html">http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1997439,00.html</a>. As the article documents, a significant percentage of Russian adoptees arrive with severe difficulties for which adoptive parents are poorly prepared; furthermore, there is in practice often very little in the way of practical assistance post-adoption. <span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>The harms done to children and families by the low standards of adoption practice are incalculable and severe.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The official announcement of the July 2011 agreement between the United States and Russia in July 2011 notes new provisions “designed to improve post-adoption reporting and monitoring and to ensure that prospective adoptive parents receive more complete information about adoptive children’s social and medical histories and anticipated needs.”<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>See <a href="http://adoption.state.gov/country_information/country_specific_alerts_notices.php?alert_notice_type=notices&alert_notice_file=russia_2">http://adoption.state.gov/country_information/country_specific_alerts_notices.php?alert_notice_type=notices&alert_notice_file=russia_2</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This has only occurred, however, after the international incident of the Hansen case, after more than 40,000 children have come to the United States under the prior, deficient system, and after adoptions from Russia have decreased by more than 80% (from 5862 in 2004 to 1079 in 2010).<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>Unfortunately, this latest reform comes very, very late.<span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal">Somehow, though, in pointing out such difficulties, I am labeled an enemy of adoption.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>This “shoot the messenger” mentality creates impunity rather than accountability. We need a better accountability system, where the persons responsible for the harm are held accountable, instead of the messenger who brings news of such harms being the one blamed when adoption systems are closed, limited, decline, or break down.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately, we probably won’t get the accountability system we need until adoption advocates like Rebecca demand it.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>So long as the adoption community minimizes the problems and seeks to silence the messengers, we will have impunity instead of reform.<span style="mso-spacerun:yes"> </span>And without reform, adoption systems will continue to break down, again and again and again….<span style="mso-tab-count: 1"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">David</p>David Smolinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14870233904521418395noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-32245846018318608312011-07-31T15:49:00.000-05:002011-07-31T15:49:13.854-05:00An Accountability Project for Intercountry Adoption--Part IIf intercountry adoption were viewed as an industry (a controversial supposition), it would be a declining industry losing market share to higher tech alternatives. The numbers of children coming into the US are down from the 2004 high of almost 23,000, to 11,000 to 12,000 children last year (depending on whether you count the 1,000 or so children paroled in from Haiti). Consequently, the number of U.S. adoption agencies is declining. Adoptions to most other receiving nations are also declining in numbers, so that global intercountry adoptions are down considerably from the high of approximately 45,000 reached around 2004. Some of this “lost market share” is presumably going to various assisted reproductive technologies, the more “tech” orientated competition. (More on these high tech alternatives in later posts….)<br />
<br />
If intercountry adoption were viewed as a humanitarian practice (a controversial supposition), it would be one of many such interventions that become mired in unintended consequences, incompetent execution, and ideological controversy. The humanitarian premise of the intercountry adoption movement has been one of providing families for orphans. The reality has too often been one of manufacturing orphans; needlessly separating children from families. Consequently, intercountry adoption has left a trail of needlessly destroyed and separated families sprinkled throughout the developing world. Further, intercountry adoption has all too often approached the delicate task of transplanting deeply traumatized special needs children across families, languages and cultures with all of the skill, competence and care of a drunk teenager high-jacking a car for a joyride. Consequently, intercountry adoption has also produced a significant degree of wreckage amongst adoptive families.<br />
<br />
It is important to make the link between the disastrous record of intercountry adoption as a humanitarian intervention, and the declining numbers. A humanitarian intervention (or industry) with a deserved reputation for corruption, incompetence, and scandal will eventually decline.<br />
<br />
Amidst these declining numbers and this unnecessary human wreckage, I think it is past time to start an accountability project. Intercountry adoption agencies and “advocates” have for too long gotten away with shifting the blame and maligning the messenger. Yet, it is precisely the adoption agencies and advocates—and the governments that have all too often capitulated to them—that are responsible both for the declining numbers and for this unnecessary human wreckage. <br />
<br />
The obstacles to such an accountability project are clear. If you name names, you may get sued. If you name names, you may leave the mistaken impression that the problem is a few bad actors. Because of these limitations, my own work has not been about naming names, but rather about identifying systemic problems with the intercountry adoption system. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, without concentrating on individuals, I think it is essential to lay the blame squarely where it belongs. The worst enemy of the intercountry adoption system has been—and continues to be—the intercountry adoption system itself. Like a spoiled child that has manipulated his/her parents into allowing him/her to eat only sweets with the predictable result of rotten teeth and stunted growth, the adoption industry has been allowed to grow into an indulged, cosseted, undisciplined, and darling, yet self-defeating monster that only succeeds in destroying and harming itself by getting what it wants.<br />
<br />
My intent is to never let the people and institutions responsible forget the harm they have done and are doing! And I hope that many of you will continue to join me in this accountability project!<br />
<br />
David SmolinDesireehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00379871315468470235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-34241065561422276182008-06-09T21:55:00.000-05:002008-06-09T22:30:07.134-05:00The Adoptee Rights DemonstrationA group of adult adoptees has planned a protest for adoptee rights to take place at the National Conference of State Legislature’s annual meeting in New Orleans, LA on Tuesday, <strong>July 22, 2008</strong>. The National Conference of State Legislatures is a bipartisan organization that serves state legislators and its staffs.<br /><br />The purpose of the protest is for adoptees representing all fifty states to hold a rally to demonstrate their commitment to adoptee rights, including unconditional open records for adult adoptees, and to meet their state delegation.<br /><br />Everyone who supports the open records movement, adoptees, first families, adoptive families, friends and supporters, are welcome to join the protest.<br /><br />Complete information about the event is at <a href="http://adopteerights.net/nulliusfilius/">The Adoptee Rights Demonstration</a> website.<br /><br />Usha<br /><br /><br /><div></div>Ushahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17770579530963305353noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-29138036006428570052008-06-09T21:53:00.000-05:002008-06-09T22:28:52.534-05:00Workshop 2.3: Adoptee Access to Records, History and Searches: Adopted People and the “Right to Know”<p align="center"><strong>Ethics and Accountability Conference<br />Sponsored by Ethica and Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute<br />October 15-16, 2007</strong><br /></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><p align="left">Bullet points for discussion during Workshop 2.3: <ul><li><div align="left">How do current laws and practices support or impede adopted persons’ access to information about themselves?</div></li><li><div align="left">What “rights” should adopted persons have to such information? How should their “rights” be balanced against those of other parties to an adoption?</div></li><li><div align="left">How should access to records and history, as well as search, be thought about from an international perspective? </div></li></li></ul><br /><br /><p>Panelists:<br /><br /><a href="http://ethicsconference.net/speakers/frederick-greenman/">Frederick F. Greenman, Jr.</a> is the legal advisor and former Director to the American Adoption Congress. He is also the Treasurer and a director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. A prominent adoption activist, he was the senior counsel to amici curiae in the historic case, Doe v. Sundquist, which upheld the 1995 Tennessee Adoption Act. He also assisted counsel in the Oregon litigation, Does v. Oregon, that upheld the ballot initiative and statute in that state which granted adoptees access to their original birth certificates. Mr. Greenman has participated in various state and federal lobbying efforts, most recently concerning ratification and implementation of the Hague Convention on International Adoption. His interest in the subject stems from having surrendered a daughter for adoption at her birth and with whom he reunited 15 years ago. Mr. Greenman, a Harvard graduate, currently is a sole practitioner specializing in copyright related litigation in addition to issues relating to adoption reform.<br /><br /><a href="http://ethicsconference.net/speakers/marley-greiner/">Marley Greiner</a> is the co-founder and executive chair of Bastard Nation: the Adoptee Rights Organization, the largest adoptee rights organization in North American. Ms. Greiner’s work has focused on the right of all adult adoptees to access their original birth certificates upon request without restriction. She was actively involved in Ballot Measure 58 in Oregon and legislation in Alabama and New Hampshire which restored the right of adult adoptees to access their original birth certificates. Ms. Greiner also is considered an expert on “safe haven” laws. Since 2001, she has published and edited Baby Dump News, a weekly e-chronicle of newborn abandonment and neonaticide. Ms. Greiner’s additional adoption interests include the relationship between adoption and Biblical America and the portrayal of adoption in film. She maintains the blog, The Daily Bastardette . Ms. Greiner holds a BA in English and Political Science from Malone College, and an MA in American History from the Ohio State University.<br /><br /><a href="http://ethicsconference.net/speakers/pam-hasegawa/">Pam Hasegawa</a>, born Rolande Sygne Hampden, has been involved with adoption reform since joining ALMA (Adoptees’ Liberty MovementAssociation) in 1973, NJCARE (NJ Coalition for Adoption Reform and Education) in 1991 and the American Adoption Congress in 1996. Her commitment to rectifying the injustice imposed by the sealed records system on persons living adoption keeps her involved as a grass-roots lobbyist and adoption educator. The “letter to the editor” has become her favorite genre; presenting experiential workshops for adoption professionals and parents with Betsy Forrest and Penny Partridge is an ongoing delight; and working with younger members of the adoption constellation who commit their hearts, minds and energy to adoption reform is a constant source of joy for her. She has been sustained in the long journey toward truth, both personal and communal, by the grace of God, deep friendships forged out of a common understanding of the need for truth in adoption and her family’s abiding support for her work as a “professional volunteer” in the adoption arena.<br /><br /><a href="http://ethicsconference.net/speakers/elizabeth-samuels/">Elizabeth Samuels</a> is a professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law, where she teaches courses in the areas of constitutional law and family law. She is a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Chicago Law School. The subjects of her research and publications include the history of adult adoptees access to original birth records and the current state of laws governing mothers’ consents to the adoption of their newborn infants. Her public service activities includes consulting with adoption law reform advocates as well as other civil rights work.<br /><br /><u>Elizabeth Samuels<br /></u><br />Elizabeth Samuels covered the history of adult adoptees’ access to their own records. Her theory is that it helps us to understand where we are if we understand how we got here. She became interested in this subject because her sister relinquished a child and they met when her birth niece became an adult. She wondered why it was thought beneficial to make records closed. To her amazement, it hadn’t been thought beneficial for adult adoptees and there were different reasons that had led to the closing of records.<br /><br />Statutory adoption is relatively recent historically. The first state adoption statute was in the mid-1800s. It wasn’t until the 1920s that essentially all states developed a statutory process for adoption. Initially, all records were open. In the early 1900s there was a movement among the states to protect the privacy of the participants i.e., confidentiality (closing records to the public). In the 1930s and 1940s states began moving toward the amended birth certificate where the child was documented as having been “born to” the adoptive parents. It was also during this time that states began sealing records not just from pubic inspection but from inspection by the parties: adoptive parents and birth parents. The primary reason was to protect adoptive families from interference or harassment from birth families. Surrender papers during this time contained promises not to seek out the child or harass the adoptive family. Adoptive parents, on the other hand, were often given documents with identifying information.<br /><br />In 1953, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws developed the first uniform adoption act recommended to states. They clearly recommended that court and birth certificate records be closed to the public and parties but that they should be accessible to adult adoptees and they were in most states at that time. And as late as 1960 in more than half the states, adults adopted as children still had access to records with identifying information. After 1960, 4 states closed records to adoptees, 6 in 1970s and 7 did not close until after 1979. Even in closed states, records could be opened by court order without notice to or participation by birth parents.<br /><br />Obviously there was a huge change in attitudes from the 1950s to 1970s. Why? There were a complex confluence of factors that led to this result with no easy answers:<br /></p><br /><br /><ul><br /><br /><li>Closing of records to public and parents helped create and endorse the idea that secrecy was a normal part of the process</li><br /><br /><li>Post- WWII emphasis on women fulfilling traditional roles: staying home and having lots of children</li><br /><br /><li>Psychoanalytic idea at least for young white unmarried women that they were suffering from a mental and moral disorder that led to their pregnancy that could be cured if they placed the child with a “normal” family</li><br /><br /><li>Emerging idea that adult adopted persons who were interested in finding out about their origins were also suffering from a mental disorder.<br /></li></ul><br /><p>Nowadays, substantial numbers of adult adoptees find out information outside of the government though many spend years and resources doing so. Looking at this history, it’s a relatively short period that adoptees have not had access. It was really an experiment that has proven more harmful than beneficial.<br /><br /><u>Marley Greiner</u></p><br /><br /><p>There are a number of reasons why original birth certificates of adoptees remained sealed in all but a handful of states:</p><br /><br /><ul><br /><br /><li>Well-funded industry lobbies such as the National Council for Adoption</li><br /><br /><li>Powerful marginal lobbies such as the National Right to Life Committee, Family Research Council, ACLU, Planned Parenthood and various feminists who believe adult adoptee identity rights endanger their own social and political agendas</li><br /><br /><li>Politically influential adoptive and birth parents</li><br /><br /><li>Reactionary and back scratching politicians</li><br /><br /><li>Political lethargy</li></ul><br /><br /><p>Right to identity and public records have no traction in the political landscape unless they intersect with high priority issues such as abortion or privacy rights and then they intersect only negatively. Adoptees are expected to shut up and be grateful for allegedly being made middle class and not tossed in a dumpster or reared in a trailer park. Those who press for records access are blamed for “disappearing adoption privacy rights”. “Adoptees are destroying adoption.”<br /><br />Adoption reformers continue to defeat themselves by compliantly accepting less than what they want: baby steps that lock out people. They feel that compromise is progress, something is better than nothing. But there is no precedent for these bad laws to be changed later. Compromisers tend to legitimate and frame their arguments in the ideology and language of the opposition. They accept the faulty social construct of the triad and its false doctrine of competing rights, balanced rights and special rights. Without the core ethic of an absolute right to birth certificates and identity for all adoptees, reformers support institutional protectionism. Their compromise is obstruct rights and information for all and the opportunity for reunion for those who seek it.<br /><br /><em>Leave no one behind.</em> 10 years ago <a href="http://www.bastards.org/">Bastard Nation</a> was founded on the guiding principle that access to original birth certificates, identity and history is a natural right, not a privilege doled out by the state. Reasons for wanting birth certificates are immaterial because they are based on desire not the right to possess them and the unredacted information in them. We have the right to the facts of our births, origins and adoptions. Adoptions were imposed and contracted upon us without our knowledge and consent by the state, then that same state seals our information and refuses to acknowledge our right to that information or even that we existed prior to our adoptions. The non-adopted need not justify why they want their vital records nor are they forced to ask for their parents’ permission, grovel before a judge, join a government registry, seek mental health counseling or spend years getting a bill passed to get them. They have a presumed right to their own birth certificates and can do with them what they please. All arguments for access then must flow from the presumed right of all adoptees to unrestricted access and possession of their true birth certificates, not just the majority class. Otherwise the right of anyone to possess their own birth certificates is not a right but a favor the state grants to some.<br /><br />The real issue therefore moves from personal desire to political rights and adoptees’ relation to the state. Who owns your identity, you or the state? In Oregon, two years after Bastard Nation (BN) was founded, it had its first victory with the passage of Ballot Measure 58, in which the people decided that Oregon adoptees had a right to their own birth certificates. When BN initiated the campaign, adoption reformers wrung their hands and said “you’ll throw us back 20 years!” They forgot to mention in their 20 years of activisim they had failed to open one single state to full access and in fact had mucked things up so badly with compromise legislation such as contractual birth parent disclosure vetos and tiered access that it will be virtually impossible to gain unrestricted access in those states without major league wrangling, if ever.<br /><br />BN's victory in Oregon was followed by legislative restoration in Alabama in 2000 which was BN's bill and New Hampshire in 2005 where BN worked with others to pass unrestricted access. Earlier this year folks in Maine unconnected to Bastard Nation who previously considered compromise got a clean bill passed which will open records for all in 2009. Exact figures are unavailable, but since at least 1999, at least 14,000 adoptees have received their birth certificates under the Just Say No to Compromise Policy. Holding the line works. Conversely, compromise legislation slugs endlessly through the pipeline amended out of recognition in a vague attempt to please an unpleasable opposition that insists the status quo continue ad infinitum.<br /><br /><em>False triad concept.</em> Adoptee rights advocates are bogged down with the concept of the adoption triad: the first parents, the adoptive parents and Baybee Bumble, the adoptee, all of whom allegedly have competing rights that must be balanced. Translation: adoptees lose. The triad characterizes the entire adoption structure as a nuclear unit; in reality, it hides information as well as people: for example, grandparents, cousins, siblings, fosterers, and institutions central to the adoption experience -- agencies, social workers, facilitators, marketers, politicians and the marketplace. There are a myriad of complicated relational permutations concealed by “the triad.” Once the other actors are introduced, we see hidden power relationships based on chronology of events, economics, class gender, race, market demand and other factors. The triad concept moved from a sociological to a political discourse where it became manipulated by those living below the water line: private business, adoption professionals and their government security force: the state which ultimately defines what adoption is and can force its will on the rest of us. For example, first mothers were morphed from threat to the adoptive family to courageous women who need protection from their adult offspring. In response, the state and the adoptocrasy colluded to develop an aggressive claim of bureaucratic promises to first mothers asserting that their anonymity is protected by sealed records, thus creating a new privacy right which has nothing to do with privacy. When documented evidence of these promises or even the desire for them was not forthcoming, the adoptocrasy countered that although there was nothing in writing, promises are implied.<br /><br />These and other claims to make records sealed are ludicrous. Surrender does not equal adoption. Privacy and confidentiality do not equal anonymity nor do sealed birth records. Under normal circumstances, competitive rights and their balancing is a problem only when there are a conflict of rights. Since there is no right to anonymity to one’s own offspring and there is a presumed to one’s own birth certificate, there is nothing to balance except in the minds of the secret keepers. What adoptocrats really want when they toss around competing rights, implied promises and confidentiality is protection from their commercial misdeeds and their continued control over other people’s personal information. This is all about institutional power. The false doctrine of competitive balance, special rights discourse foisted by the below the water line players on the above the water line people most affected by adoption is a false flag operation. Ron Morgan in his essay <a href="http://bbchurch.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html">“Adoption is a Five-Legged Stool” </a>writes: “The beauty of the Triad, at least to the fourth and fifth leg, is that it renders their agency invisible. The state and its quasi-agents, the professional adoption class, can float divinely over the pell mell and gore, offering definitive commentary and altering the rules of the game. It's a tidy racket."<br /><br />This tidy racket played out in Massachusetts recently when a reform organization packed with a professional adoption class rejected a clean bill and accepted a replacement pushed by politicians and a handful of adoptees that restored the right of access to some, keeps all future records open, but continues to seal the records of other adoptees between certain dates in order to protect the privacy rights of first parents who surrendered children between those dates. By doing so, reformers legitimated implied promises of confidentiality debunked years ago; a lie they insist we must respect. The message is clear: adoptees have no genuine right to their birth certificates or their personal information even their advocates agree.<br /><br />The triad with its plea for balanced rights forces compromise and corrupts the core principle of adoptee rights to records, identity and autonomy. Without an ethical cannon of absolute inclusion and no compromise, the rights of adoptees will continue to be balkanized and adoptees will continue to be treated as a separate class undeserving of their own records.<br /><br />Records access is a social justice issue and I think it needs to be framed that way.<br /><br /><u>Audience Discussion</u><br /><br />What are the impacts of current laws that impede access?: </p><br /><ul><br /><li>Lack of medical history</li><br /><br /><li>Not being able to have a copy of one’s own original birth certificate impedes knowing ethnic and religious heritage</li><br /><br /><li>Files are different. Agency has one file, the government has its own files. The files are different or incomplete. Information is selectively edited.</li><br /><br /><li>Inability to verify one’s own birth day, county in which one was born, lack of historical truth.</li><br /><br /><li>In a private adoption, there is a record the lawyer has which is more likely to be thrown out earlier than a record in an agency. </li><br /><br /><li>A lot of adoptees have problems getting passports. Person whose birth certificate is filed more than one year after birth can’t use that birth certificate as appropriate evidence.</li><br /><br /><li>Closed records create a market for information because information is restricted.</li><br /><br /><li>Information can be sold to those who can afford it or have connections to get it. That unequal access is unjust.</li><br /><br /><li>Adoptees say it makes them feel like second class citizens, perpetual children.</li><br /><br /><li>Totally discriminatory including within the adoption community, for example, foster children generally have access and some international adoptees arrive with their original birth certificates.</li><br /><br /><li>Impedes access for future generations.</li><br /><br /><li>Impedes guarantee of ethical practices.</li><br /><br /><li>Those in open adoption say they have their children’s birth records, but if something happens to them, can’t get them back.</li><br /><br /><li>Siblings do not know they are siblings. Possibility of incest being permitted.</li><br /><br /><li>In international context, if government doesn’t keep records and agency destroys records, then there are no records. In Hague regulations, all open access provisions are governed by state laws in the US. So if adoptee comes from abroad into a state with closed records, then that record gets closed even if the Convention gives access. </li></ul><br /><p>What are ways to make changes?<br /></p><br /><br /><ul><br /><br /><li><a href="http://adopteerights.net/nulliusfilius/">adopteerights.net</a> is having a nationwide demonstration in New Orleans on July 22, 2008 to coincide with the National Conference of State Legislators. </li><br /><br /><li>The American Adoption Congress has a <a href="http://www.americanadoptioncongress.org/reform_materials.php">legislative packet</a> that is helpful.</li><br /><br /><li>When any kind of law comes up about adoption, one can testify as a citizen. At least write a letter. In off years try to form relationships with representatives.</li><br /><br /><li>From Ethica’s standpoint, people who oppose opening records have a sophisticated way of notifying all their supporters when a bill is coming up and they flood legislators with calls. There is potential to tap into the adoptive parent and other supporter communities who believe this is not right. We can work together to come up with a similar system to flood legislators with calls.</li></ul><br /><br /><p><u>Fred Greenman</u><br /><br />Several things have developed to deal with mothers who don’t want their identity known. Oregon and three other states have contact preference forms. In a closed adoption, a birth mother has no assurance or warning she will not be found. The only case of harassment he is aware of occurred in New York which has the most tightly sealed records. If her child wants contact and records are opened, all statutes set a minimum age of at least 18 – her feelings may change over time which is what typically happens. In states with contact preference forms, the experience has been no reported problems.<br /><br />Current state of law regarding adoption access statutes. Originally had 48 closed records states (all but Kansas and Alaska). 6 have granted access. 4 of them subject to a contact preference form. Delaware has a disclosure veto -- 19 filed in entire state since 1999. In 1996, Tennessee because the first state to retroactively open records. Birth certificates had false or meaningless info because of Georgia Tann, so the Tennessee statute gave access to entire adoption file. In another 12 states, access to original birth certificates or identifying information depends on the year of birth based on the argument that birth mothers were promised confidentiality. A number of states have a confidential intermediary system.<br /><br />The whole process of secrecy starts mechanically with the original birth certificate and sealing and alteration of it into an amended birth certificate which shows the adoptive parents as simply the parents. This practice was started in 1928 by Georgia Tann who was perhaps the most notorious baby thief. She sold at least 5,000 children and at one time was the most prominent adoption practitioner in the country. She is the origin of this problem.<br /><br />All these varying systems are for better or for worse constitutional in the US.<br /><br />Ontario passed a statute which granted retroactive access to identifying information to adoptees and birth parents. There was a decision holding that statute unconstitutional. Not clear if ruling will be appealed. The ruling is weak because in Ontario, adoptive parents have always had access to original birth certificates and one plaintiff is a birth father. Paternity suits are not defended on grounds of privacy.<br /><br />Usha</p>Ushahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17770579530963305353noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-28560209829775444952008-05-20T22:58:00.000-05:002008-05-20T22:58:01.127-05:00Risks of UmbrellaingA recent court decision illustrates how an agency in an umbrella relationship with other agencies is able to successfully contractually wash its hands of liability for the actions and inactions of its subcontractors in the U.S. and abroad.<br /><br /><u>The Case<br /></u>Jon and Trisha Smith filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the adoption agency Island Coast International Adoption (ICIA) after they were unsuccessful in adopting twins from India. The Smiths waited several years for the adoption process to be completed and paid more than $20,000 to the agency. The Smiths filed suit seeking damages for breach of contract, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.<br /><br />In early 2004, the Smiths learned about the twins available for adoption in India and contacted ICIA. ICIA coordinated with International Families, Inc. (IFI), described in the court decision as ICIA’s “affiliated agency,” which was licensed to perform adoptions in India. The Smiths signed their contract with ICIA and paid three installments to ICIA totaling $3,750 plus a “country fee” of $20,500 which was forwarded to IFI. The “country fee” was used to cover the services performed by IFI as well as government and attorney costs in India.<br /><br />The twins resided in an orphanage called Peace Home. Peace was licensed by CARA but its license expired in June 2004. IFI’s license with CARA had also expired and was not immediately renewed. In March 2005, Peace’s license was renewed, but its renewal was backdated to June 2004 because the license was valid for only one year. The license expired in June 2005. IFI was unable to process the adoption of the twins by June 2005.<br /><br />Through 2004 and 2005, ICIA provided the Smiths with updates on the license renewal process, offered to allow them to switch countries and offered them a partial refund of the $3,750 that was paid to ICIA. The Smiths declined. The Smiths raised three claims against ICIA.<br /><br />1. Breach of Contract Claim<br /><br />The Smiths alleged that ICIA breached their contract because ICIA failed to properly coordinate the adoption process, and failed to accurately communicate with the Smiths and adoption officials in India. The Court disagreed and noted how the contract language did not support the Smith’s position. The contract included a description that ICIA’s fees may have covered coordination with foreign officials and with its foreign facilitator. According to the Court, “the plain language of this section clearly placed Plaintiffs on notice that Defendant would be working with others in India to complete the adoption. This only makes sense.” Further, the contract identified the specific services ICIA was required to perform which included, “locating the child, referring the child to the clients, and initiating the contact with the foreign orphanage and the affiliated agency.” Again, the Court found the contract clearly contemplated that Defendant would be working with other agencies in India and so ICIA’s coordination with them was both expected and appropriate.<br /><br />The Smiths also argued that ICIA did not act in good faith when coordinating and communicating with IFI because ICIA did not have first-hand knowledge of the specific tasks undertaken by IFI and because IFI, not ICIA, was charged with coordinating the adoption process with Indian officials. In short, the Court stated, “Plaintiffs seek to blame Defendant for the failings of IFI, but Defendant had no contractual duty to deal directly with Indian officials. Nor do Plaintiffs allege, let alone show, that Defendant is responsible for any failure of IFI. There was no contract prohibition to subcontract services to Indian agencies or that Plaintiffs pre-approve working with those agencies. Indeed, contract language summarized above contemplated quite the opposite.” The Court ruled that there was no showing of lack of good faith. Rather, “[t]o the contrary, the evidence shows Defendant performed the services required by the contract and continuously acted in good faith, providing Plaintiffs with numerous updates on the status of the adoption.”<br /><br />2. Fraud Claim<br /><br />The Smiths alleged that ICIA made repeated misrepresentations about the status of the adoption process and its relationship with IFI. The Court found that ICIA sent several emails and made numerous phone calls to the Smiths (which satisfied two elements needed to establish a fraud claim), but the Smiths failed to show that ICIA’s statements were knowingly false or made with a reckless disregard for the truth or with the intent to mislead. Although ICIA passed along false statements to the Smiths, the Court pointed out that the Smiths had to prove not just falsity, but also actual knowledge or reckless behavior. According to the Court, ICIA “justifiably relied on statements made by IFI because of past dealings and successful adoptions. Defendant reasonably believed them to be true, even if they are eventually proven to be false.”<br /><br />3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim<br /><br />In order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff in Ohio must establish several elements including “extreme” and “outrageous” conduct. The only “extreme and outrageous” conduct identified by the Smiths was that ICIA sent them pictures of the twins after the Smiths demanded that ICIA cease all contact with them. Although ICIA’s conduct may have “added, indeed aggravated, Plaintiffs’ disappointment,” the Court found that its actions fell significantly short of going “beyond all bounds of decency” or being “utterly intolerable.”<br /><br />4. The Court’s Ruling<br /><br />The Court granted ICIA’s motion for summary judgment on all three legal theories stating, “The Court recognizes there is much heartache that can accompany an unsuccessful adoption. Plaintiffs’ desire to be parents and raise children is clearly strong and commendable. However, there simply is no contract breach, fraud or intentional misconduct by Defendant who likewise wanted very much to bring these children in Plaintiffs’ lives.”<br /><br /><u>Important Facts Not Included in the Opinion</u><br /><br />There is important background information that is not included in the Court’s opinion:<br /><br />1. Peace Home’s licensing history<br /><br />Peace’s license did not simply expire. According to a report by Sujata Mody from the Malarchi Women’s Resource Center in Chennai, “From Adoption Agencies and Institutional Practices in Tamil Nadu,” Peace was hurriedly issued a license by CARA at the behest of the Secretary of Social Welfare in 2003. The usual requirement is that an adoption agency must be registered for at least three years before it can be licensed to perform international adoptions.<br /><br />Peace was inspected on October 10, 2002 and had five babies, one of which was a 13-day old infant for which there were no records. Authorities from the Department of Social Welfare observed that Peace had made insufficient efforts to identify Indian parents and had made insufficient efforts to match children with waitlisted parents. Despite this information, CARA licensed Peace on June 19, 2003.<br /><br />Mody’s report also questioned the sourcing of children to Peace. She found that the number of relinquished babies at Peace were from almost every district and region in the state of Tamil Nadu. That fact is odd given that government-run cradles where infants can be abandoned anonymously are located in every district of Tamil Nadu. Despite the wide availability of these drop off locations, Mody questioned why parents arrived from geographically distant places to relinquish their babies to Peace.<br /><br />There are several branches of Peace located in Tamil Nadu. In 2004, a branch was inaugurated in Kalapatti. Raman Rao was cited in a news article as the director of Peace Home and he indicated that the branch would shelter children between one week and seven years old in addition to destitute women. At the time of the article, 70 children were at the home, most of who came to the orphanage through the cradle baby scheme. In addition, it was claimed that many mothers left the children at the doorsteps at the home and fled. According to Mary Robert at the Coimbatore based Peace society, 75% of the 140 babies they had given for adoption were from the cradle baby scheme. The Kalapatti branch of Peace is still receiving abandoned infants.<br /><br />According to a fact finding report issued by the Campaign Against Child Trafficking in 2005 entitled, "Fact-finding Investigation into the Functioning of Licenced and Recognised / Registered Adoption Placement Agencies and Regulatory Bodies in Tamil Nadu" a CARA inspection report, “Report of the Joint Inspection of Peace (Poor Economy and Children’s Educational Society) Home, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu”, dated July 2, 2004, Peace had indulged in “unethical practices” and its “registration was not proper.” The report pointed out that most children from the agency were being sent to IFI in Washington DC whose executive director is Mrudula Rao, mother of the treasurer of Peace. E. Raman Rao, the treasurer’s father, donated most of the funds to the agency which is one such “unethical practice” cited in CARA’s report because most of the children were being sent to IFI. According to a Frontline investigative report of adoption agencies in Tamil Nadu, the 2004 CARA report included the following allegations against Peace:<br /><br /><br /><ul><br /><li>“The agency has tampered relinquishment deeds (surrendered directly to the Home), created false siblings, followed various unethical practices, i.e., giving wrong information about [some children in the agency at the time of the inspection].” </li><br /><li>“While siblings A[] and A[] were admitted at different times, the relinquishment deeds indicate that they were surrendered together.” </li><br /><li>“According to the relinquishment deed, Maheshwari and her sibling were surrendered by their widowed mother. But the inspection team found that Maheshwari’s father was alive; she was left there for better education; and the sibling she was paired with was actually not her brother.” </li><br /><li>“Several registers/records are not properly maintained.” </li><br /><li>“The registration of the Society is not proper.” </li><br /><li>“While more than 40 Indian parents have registered for children, the agency has not shown interest to complete home studies of the families.”<br /></li></ul><br /><p>Despite CARA’s inspection report and an order to show cause issued to Peace that received no reply, CARA renewed Peace’s license in April 2005. Peace currently no longer has a license to perform inter-country adoptions.<br /><br />2. Allegations about IFI<br /><br />A visit to India-adoption related forums such as <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ichild/">ichild</a> and blogs will quickly confirm the long history of complaints about IFI similar to those raised by the Smiths. One mother writes on her blog in 2005:<br /></p><br /><blockquote></blockquote><br /><blockquote></blockquote><br /><blockquote>Our agency isn’t at fault, really. Not directly, at least. They’re just too<br />passive. They’ve just accepted what the liason said and never questioned any of<br />it. This liason has a bad rap in the India adoption world – we knew this only<br />after we were knee-deep in the program and already in love with our little girl.<br />He is known for over-promising waiting families and not delivering – often<br />without refunding money invested by the waiting families. But we were assured<br />that he had never done anything negative in the years that he worked with our<br />agency and had, in fact, completed around 100 successful adoptions from India<br />with our agency. So we didn’t worry too much back then. Over the years, though,<br />our doubts grew. And now our doubts were confimed.<br /></blockquote><br /><p><br />Despite its reputation and history of complaints, IFI received temporary Hague accreditation for a period of two years.<br /><br />3. ICIA is not licensed by CARA. According to existing CARA guidelines, “a foreign social/child welfare agency desirous of sponsoring applications of foreign adoptive parents for adopting an Indian child shall make an application to CARA through the Office of Indian Diplomatic Mission in that country and only such foreign agencies enlisted for this purpose by CARA shall undertake this activity.”<br /><br /><u>Questions</u><br /><br />1. Does CARA permit umbrella relationships such as that between ICIA and IFI?<br /><br />2. Does ICIA or IFI have any accountability for charging a $20,500 “country fee” which is well above CARA’s guideline current maximum of $3,500?<br /><br />3. Given the irregularities cited by CARA inspectors and reports by NGOs and investigative journalists about unethical practices at PEACE, what ethical responsibility did ICIA have to become aware of PEACE’s operations instead of relying solely on IFI’s statements along the way?<br /><br />4. Did the unethical practices cited by CARA about PEACE, PEACE’s relationship with IFI, IFI’s long history of complaints from other families factor into its review for Hague accreditation?<br /><br />Usha<br /><br />Smith v. Island Coast International Adoption, Slip Copy, 2008 WL 839793 (N.D. Ohio March 27, 2008)<br /><br /><a href="http://www.travel.state.gov/family/adoption/convention/convention_4169.html">U.S. Department of States list of Accredited, Temporarily Accredited, and Approved Hague Adoption Service Providers</a> as of April 15, 2008 </p><br /><p>CARA Guidelines, <a href="http://www.cara.nic.in/guide_inter_country_chap6.htm">Rule 6.1</a> and <a href="http://www.cara.nic.in/ipas_list_tamilnadu.htm">List of Recognized Indian Placement Agencies in Tamil Nadu</a>, as of April 20, 2008<br /><br />“<a href="http://www.thehindu.com/2007/11/28/stories/2007112861481000.htm">Baby girl abandoned in theatre</a>,” The Hindu, November 28, 2007<br /><br />"Adoption Agencies and Institutional Practices in Tamil Nadu: A Sociological Study”, Sujata Mody, Malarchi Women’s Resource Centre, Chennai, 2005 </p><br /><p>"Fact-finding Investigation into the Functioning of Licenced and Recognised / Registered Adoption Placement Agencies and Regulatory Bodies in Tamil Nadu", Campaign Against Child Trafficking, August 19, 2005<br /><br />“<a href="http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2211/stories/20050603006700400.htm">The Adoption Market</a>” by Asha Krishnakumar, Frontline, Vol. 22, Issue 11, May 21-June 3, 2005<br /><br />“<a href="http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2211/stories/20050603006101300.htm">Behind the façade</a>” by Asha Krishnakumar, Frontline, Vol. 22, Issue 11, May 21-June 3, 2005</p><br /><p><a href="http://afrindiemum.org/2005/05/26/398/">AfrIndie Mum</a>, blog post dated May 26, 2005 </p><br /><p>“<a href="http://www.thehindu.com/2004/04/06/stories/2004040613040300.htm">Orphanage inaugurated</a>,” The Hindu, April 6, 2004 </p>Ushahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17770579530963305353noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-73699958384505273042008-04-25T16:43:00.000-05:002008-04-25T17:34:48.667-05:00US Embassy in Vietnam: Summary of Irregularities in Adoptions in VietnamThe public document which follows was posted by the United States Embassy in Hanoi, Vietnam's Adopted Children Immigrant Visa Unit on their official website on Friday, April 25, 2008:<br /><blockquote><br /><center><big><bold>Summary of Irregularities in Adoptions in Vietnam</bold></big></center><br /><br />On October 25, 2007 in response to “growing concerns about irregularities in the methods used to identify children for adoption in Vietnam and the resulting difficulties in classifying those children as orphans,” USCIS required that I-600 petitions be filed in Ho Chi Minh City, with the processing of these petitions to be completed before prospective adoptive parents travel to Vietnam. These procedures enable USCIS to determine whether a child qualifies as an orphan, as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act. In the six months since this program was instituted, US officials in Vietnam have investigated over 300 I-600 petitions. This report presents a summary of our findings. <br /><br /><br />----------------------<br />Country Fraud Profile<br />----------------------<br /><br />Vietnam is considered to be a high risk country for immigration fraud according to the Department of State. Fraudulent documents are routinely submitted by Vietnamese applicants in both non-immigrant and immigrant visa applications. These include both documents that have been fabricated outright and official documents issued improperly or based on incorrect information. Birth certificates, household registry documents, and marriage certificates can easily be purchased from corrupt local government officials or brokers. Marriage fraud, in order to obtain immigration benefits, is common and has resulted in multiple arrests in the United States. <br /><br />--------------------------------------------------<br />Adoption Legislation and Administrative Structure<br />--------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Intercountry adoption in Vietnam is regulated by two decrees: Decree 68/2002 and Decree 69/2006. These decrees divide responsibility for adoption between the Department of International Adoption (DIA) in the Ministry of Justice, and the Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA) at the national level. Most of the actual administration of adoptions, however, is handled at the provincial or district level, with minimal oversight from DIA or MOLISA. For example, the matching of children and adoptive parents is the responsibility of the district-level Department of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs. In many cases this authority is delegated to the orphanage director. If DIA feels that a child is not eligible for intercountry adoption, they can request the office that made the match review the file, but they cannot block the match or prevent the completion of a full and final adoption.<br /><br />The definition of an adoptable orphan is provided in Decree 68/2002 Article 44, which states that a child cannot be released for adoption without "the written voluntary agreement of the father and/or mother of that child." The decree lists only three exceptions to this rule. The first is if both parents are deceased; the second is if the child "has been abandoned or left at a medical establishment;" and the third is if "the child's parents have lost their civil act capacity" [sic]. Decree 69/2006 clarifies that the orphanage or People's Committee must prove that a child is covered by one of these exceptions. Otherwise, a child is still considered to be under his parents' custody, whose consent is required prior to any adoption being authorized. Decree 68/2002 and Decree 69/2006 also establish that in the case of a child who has been abandoned or left at a medical facility, a 30 day search must be made for the birth parents, and in all cases a separate 30 day search must be made for domestic adoptive parents. These searches are conducted by the orphanage or local People's Committee.<br /><br />----------------------------------<br />Financial links between ASPs and Orphanages<br />----------------------------------<br /><br />Vietnamese law requires that an Adoption Service Provider (ASP) sign a donation agreement with an orphanage before the ASP can arrange adoptions from the orphanage. These agreements are generally not released to the public. Several orphanage directors have told the Embassy that they actively bargain with multiple ASPs, and choose to work with the ASP that offers the highest donation per child referred. While these donations can be a mechanism to assist in the care of the children at the orphanage, they can also have a distorting effect on the adoption system.<br /><br />Orphanage directors in four provinces have reported to the Embassy that there is a strong financial incentive to maximize the number of children available for foreign adoption in their centers. The donation provided per child (available for intercountry adoption) can be up to 10 times the standard government funding. Hospital and social workers have reported that orphanage directors offer them financial incentives for each child sent to their orphanage. <br /><br />As a result of the autonomy given to orphanage directors by MOLISA, individual orphanage directors, in conjunction with representatives of their sponsoring ASP, have broad latitude in determining how donations will be made, what the amount will be, and whether applications from prospective domestic adoptive parents will be processed. For example, one orphanage, which is entirely funded by an American ASP, submits expense reports and receipts to the ASP on a monthly basis. The ASP then transfers funds to reimburse the orphanage for its expenses. The number of infants in this orphanage has remained steady for the past three years. The orphanage is clean, well stocked with medicine and has an RN on duty. This orphanage prioritizes reuniting children with their biological parents, and processes equal numbers of domestic and intercountry adoptions. By contrast, another orphanage receives a fixed monthly donation for each child in the orphanage who is available for international adoption and the payment is made in cash directly to the orphanage director. This orphanage has seen the number of infants in its care increase by over 2000% in the past year, but it has not made significant increases in staff and does not have an RN. <br /><br />According to DIA, orphanages are required to refer one child for foreign adoption for every x dollars donated by the ASP. Thus, if the ASP funds a $10,000 project and the per-child donation is set at $1000 per child, then the orphanage would be required to refer 10 children for intercountry adoption to the ASP. Should the orphanage not have 10 children who are qualified for intercountry adoption, then, according to DIA, the orphanage director is required to find the additional children to complete his side of the agreement. Two orphanage directors have confirmed to consular officers that they are feeling pressure to find more children for their orphanage to "compensate" ASPs for their donations. <br /><br />Another effect of the donation system is that it can reduce the protections that Vietnamese law grants to birth parents, such as the required 30 day search for birth parents and/or domestic adoptive parents as described above. Since, in most cases, the ASP has a close relationship with the orphanage, the ASP representative may be informed as soon as a potentially adoptable child enters the orphanage. This can result in the issuance of a "soft referral," where adopting parents are notified that they have been matched with a child before the completion of the two consecutive 30 day search periods. The DIA has stated that such pre-referrals are illegal. Nonetheless, in over 40 documented cases, DIA has taken no action to punish or prevent the issuance of soft referrals, noting that all they can do is to inform provincial or district officials of the law and request their compliance.<br /><br />Local officials throughout Vietnam have reported that they have never received any calls in response to ads run seeking the birth parents of a deserted child. In fact, officials at the Ministry of Justice acknowledge that such advertisements are ineffective as many families in these provinces have no access to TV or radio and are often illiterate. Vietnamese social workers also note that if a child is abandoned, the birth family is most likely to reclaim the child 3-6 months after the abandonment. However, the ads are run only one week after the abandonment, further decreasing their effectiveness. Further, provincial officials have stated that the advertisements are made in a manner that significantly decreases the likelihood that they will be heard or seen by the birth families. Investigations by the Embassy have also confirmed that the ads are not effective. In 6 cases where investigations by the Embassy have located the birth family of allegedly deserted children, the birth families said that they never heard or saw any ads seeking the parents of the child.<br /><br />Orphanage directors in two provinces have confirmed to the Embassy that while they receive applications from families interested in domestic adoption, they do not process these applications. They have said that the reason these applications are not processed is that their orphanage will receive a donation from an ASP if the baby is adopted internationally, but not if the child is adopted domestically. One orphanage director stated that he would need "permission" from the ASP funding his orphanage in order to release a child for domestic adoption, noting that the monthly support payments the ASP made for the children gave the ASP the "authority" to decide the child's future.<br /><br />-----------------------<br />Types of Adoption Cases<br />-----------------------<br /><br />Under US Immigration law, children can be adopted if they are orphans due to the whereabouts of their birth parents being unknown (desertion) or if one or both birth parents have permanently relinquished custody of their child to the orphanage, (termed "abandonment" by US Immigration law, but commonly referred to as relinquishment). Prior to the suspension of adoption in 2002, 80% of cases were relinquishments, and 20% were abandonments. Since the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) went into effect in 2005, those figures have flipped with over 85% of the cases involving desertions. Orphanages not involved in intercountry adoption, however, have reported to the Embassy that they have not seen any increase in the number of deserted children, and the vast majority of children in these facilities are children in care . Post has received multiple, credible reports from orphanage officials that facilitators are deliberately staging fraudulent desertions to conceal the identity of the birth parents. <br /><br />---------------<br />Relinquishments<br />---------------<br /><br />Cases where one or both birth parents have permanently relinquished their child to an orphanage account for 15% of cases filed under the Orphan First program. 75% of birth parents who were interviewed by a consular officer stated that in addition to payments for food, medical care and administrative expenses, they received payment from the orphanage in exchange for placing their child in the orphanage. On average this payment was six million Vietnamese Dong, which is the equivalent of 11 months salary at minimum wage in Vietnam. Many of these families cited these payments as the primary reason for placing their child in an orphanage. The majority of these parents also state that they had not considered placing their child in an orphanage until a health care worker or orphanage official suggested to them that they should do so and informed them that they would receive a payment for doing so. Many of these parents also report that orphanage officials told them that the child will visit home frequently, will return home after they reach a certain age (often 11 or 12), or will send remittance payments from the United States. In these cases, the majority of birth parents have said they do not consent to the adoption if any of these conditions are not kept.<br /><br />The Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA) has stated that the payments to birth parents described above are unauthorized and not funded by government sources. The Ministry of Justice has likewise confirmed that such payments are illegal under Vietnamese law. MOLISA has stated, however, that there are absolutely no regulations on how orphanage directors can spend the money given to them by ASPs and that orphanage directors can give this money to anyone they wish, as long as the recipient did not have to take any action, such as relinquishing a child, in order to receive the donation. Accordingly, while MOLISA can confirm that the reported payments from orphanage officials to biological parents must have come from ASP funds, they do not have the ability to take action or to investigate reports of child buying.<br /><br />----------<br />Desertions<br />----------<br /><br />Throughout Vietnam, officials at orphanages connected with intercountry adoptions report a sharp increase in the number of deserted children has since 2005, the year that the adoption agreement with the United States was signed. Orphanages in 7 provinces report a 17 fold or greater increase in desertions. Officials at orphanages not connected with intercountry adoption, however, have not seen an increase in desertions. A statistical review of child desertions reveals a series of facilities that have an unexplained high rate of child desertions. <br /><br />Provincial records also document an unusual pattern of "desertion pockets." For example, in one province in 2007 there were 77 cases of child desertion. Of these, 76 occurred at one particular orphanage. The director of this orphanage told the Embassy that before he signed an agreement with an ASP, the orphanage was home to 10 children, most of whom had been relinquished. By January 2007, the orphanage was home to 23 children, of whom fifty percent had been deserted. By January 2008, the orphanage was home to 70 infants, with over 90% of them having been deserted. The orphanage director attributed the growth in the number of children and the number of desertions to the fact that the orphanage was receiving funds from the American ASP. He also stated that the orphanage had hired contract employees to find children between zero and six years of age whose families were in a particularly difficult situation and encourage the families to put their children in the orphanage. The orphanage guards also confirmed that desertions were extremely rare before 2006, but now they “find” five infants per month on average.<br /><br />In other cases, individuals report finding children in a field or by the side of the road. Often the individual who purportedly found the child (child finder) is a police officer, a village official or a member of their immediate family. These individuals are often related to the orphanage director or the local official who approves adoptions. Embassy investigations have shown that many of these reports are fraudulent. These include cases in which those individuals, who only months or weeks before had signed statements claiming to have found a deserted child, told consular officers that they had never in their lives found a deserted child. In one case, the child finder could not remember finding a child, even though the purported event had happened the day before. In another case, the child finder stated that the police told her if she did not sign a fraudulent statement claiming that she had found a child in 2007, they would arrest her for kidnapping in connection with a child finder statement that she signed in 2006.<br /><br />In over 10 cases, Embassy investigations have discovered the identity of the birth mother in cases where a child was purportedly deserted. In all of these cases, the birth mother was known to orphanage or hospital officials, but these institutions fraudulently document the case as a desertion. In some cases, this was to conceal payments to the birth family. In others, children were declared to be deserted with unknown parents after the birth parents failed to pay outstanding hospital bills.<br /><br />In one of these cases, the official Vietnamese documentation the child was born at Hospital X and then the birth mother left the hospital and was untraceable. An Embassy investigation showed that the child was born by C-section at a different hospital. The child was pre-mature and had significant respiratory problems and thus was transferred to Hospital X. Based on information from the hospital director, the Embassy located and interviewed the birth mother, who stated that she had visited her son at the hospital several times, but that the hospital director would not let her hold the child until she paid a 12 million Vietnam Dong hospital bill. She stated that she applied to have the bill reduced due to her low income, but the director refused to consider the application. Additionally, she stated that she had been told that her child would require lifelong treatment for water on the brain and that, as a result, her son had been transferred to Orphanage Y for care. She was shocked to hear that the medical report from the U.S. panel physician stated that the child was healthy. After considerable pressure from the U.S. Mission, this adoption was canceled and the child is now back with his birth parents.<br /><br />----------------------<br />Unlicensed Facilities<br />----------------------<br /><br />In five provinces, the Embassy has discovered unlicensed, unregulated facilities that provide free room and board to pregnant women in return for their commitment to relinquish their children upon birth. None of these facilities openly advertises its services. Women learn of the facilities existence solely by word of mouth. While the facilities are open and the women are free to come and go as they please, they incur a debt for each night that they stay that they have to pay if they do not relinquish their child. Recent Vietnamese media reports of such facilities have revealed that women often live in squalor and in many cases are forced to labor during their stay. In several of these facilities, there is a policy that the birth mother cannot see her child after delivery, in order to prevent bonding. Women in these facilities report receiving up to 6 million Vietnam Dong as payment for their children. While the source of funding for these facilities is unclear, they appear to have close connections with nearby orphanages.<br /><br />When the Embassy visited these facilities, we saw up to 20 women living in a single home. These women reported that orphanage officials came to the house in order to have them sign paperwork relinquishing their children. The women would then receive the promised payments. Often, the child is then taken to a nearby hospital or orphanage where a second set of paperwork is produced stating that the child was deserted. This is the paperwork that is submitted to the DIA and to the Embassy to support the claim that the child is an orphan.<br /><br />------------------------------------------<br />Vietnamese Documents - Issuance Procedures<br />------------------------------------------<br /><br />Documents relating to adoptions in Vietnam, such as birth certificates, abandonment reports, relinquishment agreements, and investigative reports are generally issued by orphanage directors, local People’s Committees, Provincial Departments and the Department for International Adoptions (DIA). The facts asserted in these documents are not verified by the issuing officials. Attempts by U.S. officials to verify the accuracy of these documents have routinely uncovered evidence of fraudulent or inaccurate information. Therefore, all documents issued by the authorities listed above and any other documents containing information not verified by the issuing authority cannot be considered adequate evidence of the facts claimed and, at best, may be used in conjunction with primary and contemporaneous secondary evidence or must be must be independently verified by U.S. officials in Vietnam before they can be considered valid for immigration purposes.<br /><br />In cases involving the desertion of a child, local officials usually issue birth certificates and reports of abandonment at the request of orphanage or hospital officials without speaking to the individuals involved. For example, the People's Committee in one southern province told the Embassy that they issue whatever documents a local midwife requests without verifying the accuracy of the statements. This is done to "help her with her business with the orphanage." In a different province, village officials issued an official statement that a birth mother was single, even though their own registry book showed she was married and had four children. Further, MOLISA has confirmed that for deserted children a birth certificate can be issued showing the date and time of desertion as the date and time of birth and listing the birth parents as unknown, even if the true facts have been previously recorded in official documents.<br /><br />The Embassy has received credible reports that some ASPs pay $10,000 per referred child to local facilitators. According to one of these facilitators, a significant portion of this money goes to the orphanage director, who is responsible for finding children. The facilitator and orphanage director then work together to create a false advertisement claiming that the child was abandoned, regardless of the child's true origins. This ad is then used to obtain the necessary paperwork from local officials and DIA. The facilitator noted that as long as the right fee is paid, no one tries to verify the facts of the case, and the documents are issued with no questions asked.<br /><br />Fraudulent police reports have also been submitted to the Embassy in connection with adoption cases. For example, in one adoption case the original file stated that the birth mother was unknown. However, hospital records revealed the mother's name and address. When the Embassy requested an explanation as to why DIA approved the adoption case without a police search for the biological mother as required by Vietnamese law, DIA blamed the omission of the birthmother search report on the village police and provided a document dated March 21, 2007, stating that a police check had been done and they could not find the birth mother. However, the police officer who purportedly did the check stated he had not actually done a physical search, and that the date on the document was inaccurate. He stated that "about 20 days ago" the police chief in another village visited his office with a prepared backdated report about the search and asked him to sign, which he did.<br /><br />----------------------------------------------<br />Vietnamese Documents - Verification Procedures<br />----------------------------------------------<br /><br />Once a child has been matched with a prospective adoptive parent, the provincial level Department of Justice conducts a review of the file to ensure that it contains the proper documents required by Vietnamese law. According to provincial Department of Justice officials, the review consists of physically verifying that the child is in the orphanage and verifying that each required document is signed, sealed and in the file. There is no requirement to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the file. Further, there is no requirement to verify that a birth parent intended to relinquish their child or to verify the circumstances of a child's desertion. According to DIA, even if this review were to uncover any discrepancies, DIA and provincial Department of Justice officials are prohibited from conducting an independent review of the facts or speaking directly with the witnesses in the case. Instead, they are required by Article 45 of Decree 68/2002 to return the case to the official who prepared the original report. If this individual recertifies that his original report is correct, then the case is allowed to proceed.<br /><br />DIA's explicit position is that, as long as the appropriate papers have been signed by the correct officials, DIA will certify that the adoption complies with Vietnamese law. DIA has stated that it does not actually have the authority to declare an adoption illegal, revoke a Giving and Receiving Ceremony, or cancel a referral. The lack of verification and accountability regulations in Vietnamese adoption law creates a situation where an unscrupulous orphanage director or local official who fabricates a "desertion" or "relinquishment” is also only that official who can investigate the alleged fraud in the case.<br /><br />A provincial Department of Justice official told the Embassy of cases where under Vietnamese law children had been matched with adopting families and the cases were referred to her office for verification. In one case, hospital records stated that the birth mother had registered at the hospital under an assumed name and then died shortly after the birth. The child was listed as deserted. However, the DOJ official found a reference in the hospital file that the woman's family had come to the hospital to claim her body. As a result the official contacted the family, who stated that the hospital had transferred the child to the orphanage without their consent and that the orphanage had denied them visitation rights. The family has now been reunited with the child, who is being raised by his maternal grandparents. However, the official noted that under Vietnamese law no one had technically done anything wrong in separating this child from his family. Only her personal interest in the case and her ability to persuade other local officials to do the right thing prevented this child from being permanently separated from his family.<br /><br />----------------------------------------<br />Reports of Corruption in Adoption System<br />----------------------------------------<br /><br />The Embassy has received credible reports from current and former employees of ASPs working in Vietnam regarding corruption in the adoption system, beginning with the licensing procedures. Several ASPs have reported that they were told they had to fund tours to the United States for DIA and other government officials in order to receive their licenses. According to ASP employees, these tours included shopping sprees, where ASP employees were expected to pay for all of the purchases of the Vietnamese delegation. Others have reported being asked to pay bribes in order to obtain provincial licenses.<br /><br />In addition, statements from adopting parents and ASP employees show that many ASPs ask adopting parents to pay cash donations to orphanage directors and staff. These payments are illegal according to the Vietnamese Ministry of Justice, but the Ministry acknowledges that they are widespread and that they are a key factor in the irregularities seen in the adoption system in Vietnam. Further, ASPs have reported that cash and in-kind donations have been diverted by orphanage officials and used to finance personal property, private cars, jewelry and, in one case, a commercial real estate development.<br /><br />-----------------------------------------------<br />Official Response to Reports of Irregularities<br />-----------------------------------------------<br /><br />DIA has acknowledged that when it receives reports from the Embassy regarding fraud in adoption cases, they meet with the ASP or local facilitators to develop a strategy to refute the Embassy's evidence. Frequently this consists of a second investigation where child-finders are notified in advance that they will be re-interviewed in front of the People's Committee. When they arrive they are reminded that they can be punished for having previously made false statements to the People’ Committee. In other cases, birth mothers from rural provinces who had told the Embassy they did not agree to relinquish their children were summoned to Hanoi at their own expense and ordered to appear before DIA to sign new relinquishment papers. Under this pressure, child-finders and birth mothers have recanted the statements they had made to consular officials.<br /><br /><br />The Embassy has informed the DIA of cases of potential fraud and illegal activity. However, the DIA has acknowledged that it has not taken any action, criminal or administrative, against any individual or organization for any violation of Vietnamese law or regulation concerning adoption. They have also stated that they have taken no action to address concerns or allegations of wrongdoing submitted to them by individuals, ASPs or the U.S. Embassy. Instead, DIA has stated that it is in the "humanitarian" interest of the Government of Vietnam to ensure that every proposed adoption is completed as quickly as possible. They note that the ASPs have made a donation for the child, and thus, even if they had the authority to revoke a referral or an adoption, they would not do so because they could not break their contract with the ASP.</blockquote><a href="http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/irreg_adoptions042508.html">Summary of Irregularities in Adoptions in Vietnam, Adopted Children Immigrant Visa Unit, Embassy of the United States in Hanoi, Vietnam, 25 April, 2008</a>Desireehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00379871315468470235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-62627367040483980872008-04-22T00:15:00.000-05:002008-04-21T20:29:47.674-05:00When the Bough Breaks -- Criticisms of Tamil Nadu's Baby Cradle SchemeA Cradle Baby Scheme was established by the Tamil Nadu, India state government in 1992 as a means to combat the problem of female infanticide in certain areas of the state. At the time, studies reported that there were about 3,000 cases of femal infanticide yearly in Tamil Nadu which approached 20% of all female infant deaths in the State.<br /><br />Tamil Nadu launched the Cradle Baby Scheme under which parents could leave babies in cradles at government-designated reception centers. The Scheme started in centers in Salem, Madurai, Theni and Dindigul, the areas most notorious in Tamil Nadu for female infanticide. The scheme extended throughout the state and reception centers were set up in every district at major government hospitals and other sites.<br /><br />In 1994 the State began arresting parents charged with female infanticide under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (murder). That year, an estimated 100 such cases were registered, resulting in a few life sentences.<br /><br />As of June 1, 2007, the government had received 2,589 children through the Baby Cradle Scheme. Though the Scheme was established in 1992, most of the children, 2,495, were surrendered/abandoned through the Scheme after the year 2000.<br /><br />On March 29, 2008, Renuka Chowdhury, the Union Ministry for Women and Child Development, issued a press release stating that baby reception centers would be set up in every district in the country of India. A country-wide Cradle Baby Scheme was to have been inaugurated in December 2007 but has been postponed purportedly due to a lack of funds. R. Smitha, managing director of the Puducherry Corporation for Development of Women, indicates that the nationwide program now will be launched during 2009-2010.<br /><br />A special report in March 2008 by Tehelka Magazine outlines major criticisms of the Baby Cradle Scheme:<br /><br /><u>Lack of Records for Cradle Babies</u>. The first children adopted out of the Cradle Baby Scheme would now be about 15-16 years old. But there is no information available about these children and whether the Scheme has benefited them. No records have been kept for these children and no one in the government knows what happened to these children after they were handed over to adoption agencies. In addition, although in many cases the identity of the surrendering parents are known, this information is not available for the babies who are abandoned through the Cradle Baby Scheme.<br /><br /><u>Mortality Rate of Cradle Babies</u>. As of June 1, 2007, 404 of the 2,589 babies received under the scheme died. According to P Phavalam, project officer at the Society for Integrated Rural Development in Madurai, the infant mortality rate in Tamil Nadu is 31, but it is 162 for the cradle babies.<br /><br /><u>Relationship between Cradle Baby Scheme and the Proliferation of Unmonitored Adoption Agencies</u>. Organizations such as the Integrated Rural Development are opposed to the Cradle Baby Scheme. They assert that the cradle babies have turned out to be an unending source of supply for adoption agencies in the State. A social worker at Peace Society in Coimbature estimates that 75% of the nearly 140 babies they had given for adoption were cradle babies. As of November 2003, 27 of the 45 babies housed at Concorde House of Jesus and 19 of the 46 children at Guild of Service were cradle babies. Critics say that the cradle babies give the adoption agencies recognition and acceptance for their activities “without excessive monitoring and interference.” It is felt that the pressure on the Department of Social Welfare to rehabilitate the babies under the Cradle Baby Scheme has made them more flexible towards the agencies and their practices.<br /><br />It appears that the proliferation of adoption agencies in Tamil Nadu is intricately linked to the Cradle Baby Scheme. Between 2002 and 2006, the time frame when the government revived the Cradle Baby Scheme and extended it to all districts, the number of adoption agencies doubled from 11 to 23. In 2005, a four-month study on the functioning of adoption agencies in the State prompted by the exposure of a kidnapping and sale racket of approximately 350 children, found that there was “big competition” among adoption agencies to get babies from the Cradle Baby Scheme. It also found that these agencies received large donations from prospective adoptive parents. According to the report, “We were told these donations are not accounted for and could range from Rs. 50,000 (approximately USD $1,254) to Rs. 2 lakh (approximately USD $5,015).<br /><br /><u>Questions about Welfare of Cradle Babies</u>. With the lack of oversight over cradle babies who have been transferred to adoption agencies comes concern over their welfare. In November 2006, a five year old cradle baby in Attur had been found to have been tortured by her adoptive parents with around 300 burns and injuries on her body. As a result, the Tamil Nadu government ordered a study on the status of children put for adoption, but its findings have not been made public. Some call on the government to require annual agency reports of the child’s welfare until the child turns 18.<br /><br /><u>Questions about Cradle Babies Placed in Inter-Country Adoption</u>. As of January 1, 2007, 1,472 cradle babies were adopted within India and 115 were adopted outside the country. Some opposed to the Cradle Baby Scheme are concerned that the cradle babies internationally adopted are growing up in an alien culture contrary to the subsidiarity principles set forth by the 1989 United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the 1993 Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption. A. Renganathan, director of the Salem-based NGO Village Reconstruction and Development Project asks, “Can the government establish that no Indian parent was willing to adopt any of those 115 children?”<br /><br /><u>Questionable Impact of the Cradle Baby Scheme on Female Infanticide Rates</u>. Female infanticide rates have not decreased. According to M. Shankar, convenor of the Tamil Nadu chapter of the Campaign Against Negligence of Girl-Child, “Dharmapuri’s sex ratio in the 0-6 age-group is 877 compared to the state’s ratio of 939. Similarly, the female infanticide rate is 73 against the state’s rate of 55.” A. Renganathan says that some parents prefer to kill unwanted girl children rather than handing the children over to the government saying, “It causes grief for a few days, then it’s over. To hand over the child for adoption would give them life-long worry.”<br /><br /><u>The Cradle Baby Scheme Legitimizes Traditional Discrimination Against Female Children</u>.<br />Instead of alleviating discrimination against females, critics charge that the Cradle Baby Scheme actually reinforces it. For example, the highest number of babies received under the Scheme were in Dharmapuri. The Scheme was launched in Dharmapuri in 2002. By February 27, 2008, the reception center at the Dharmapuri government hospital received 1,044 babies. According to the director of the center, only 41 of the 1,044 babies were male and most of these males had some disability. Thus, critics say, the message is clear that male babies are abandoned only if they have a disability, whereas a girl is dumped because of her gender.<br /><br /><u>Lack of Adequate Funding for the Cradle Baby Scheme</u>. The Tamil Nadu government has not allocated sufficient funding to the Cradle Baby Scheme. According to the Social Welfare Department, funding has ranged between Rs. 6 lakh (approximately USD $15,045) and Rs. 12 lakh (approximately USD $30,090). Activists allege that the Scheme is poorly funded and there is no exclusive staff devoted to operating it. As a result, there are no people on hand at the various reception centers to counsel parents who come to surrender their children.<br /><br /><u>The Cradle Baby Scheme Leaves Other Alternatives Unexplored</u>. The group Social Movement Against Female Infant Mortality recently urged the government to suggest alternative schemes to save female babies. The group suggested that it provide more financial assistance to girls in the family. For example, a marriage assistance scheme provides Rs. 15,000 (approximately USD $376) to one girl in a family. If this assistance could be extended to other girls in the family, it could bring about a change in attitude it says. In Mettur, Salem district, the Welfare Centre for Women and Children, has come up with a new program that identifies pregnant women and places those who have two or more girl children in a high risk category who are then closely monitored. The director, R. Sampath, says this close watch has had an effect on reducing female infanticide.<br /><br />Usha<br /><br />“<a href="http://www.flonnet.com/fl2211/stories/20050603006301600.htm">The Cradle Babies</a>,” by Asha Krishnakumar, Frontline, Vol 22, Issue 11, June 3, 2005.<br /><br />“<a href="http://www.tehelka.com/story_main38.asp?filename=Ne290308where_rejected.asp">Where Do Rejected Little Girls Go…”, </a>by PC Vinoj Kumar, Tehelka, Vol. 5, Issue 12, March 29, 2008.<br /><br />“<a href="http://www.tehelka.com/story_main38.asp?filename=Ne290308in_the_interest.asp">In the Interest of the Mother and the Child</a>,” by Khushboo, Tehelka, Vol. 5, Issue 12, March 29, 2008.<br /><br />“<a href="http://www.tehelka.com/story_main38.asp?filename=Ne290308killerdistricts.asp">Killer Districts</a>” by PC Vinoj Kumar, Tehelka, Vol. 5, Issue 12, March 29, 2008.Ushahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17770579530963305353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35750443.post-88168091801797283132008-04-21T23:34:00.000-05:002008-04-21T20:29:10.467-05:00Investigation of baby trafficking scheme in Costa Rica14 individuals were detained by police on March 4, then later released in Costa Rica on suspicions of participating in an illegal adoption scheme. The 14 individuals include a family court judge, a lawyer and two social workers employed at a clinic in San Jose. Also believed to have been detained are some of the would-be parents.<br /><br />Police believe that the scheme targeted mothers who were in financial need. Costa Rican adoptive parents may have paid about $10,000 per baby. It is believed the scheme involves at least three babies who were purchased since June 2006, but police suspect there are more infants involved. Chief Prosecutor Francisco Dall'Anese indicated that some of the mothers suffered from drug addiction.<br /><br />According to Jorge Rojas, chief of Judicial Investigation Police, “We have evidence of the sale of a child, who perhaps went to a family enthused to have a baby. But this trafficking is prohibited by law. Even thought it was a direct deal, in which the mother handed over the child, it was in exchange for money.”<br /><br />Allegedly, the lawyer who was detained was the mastermind behind the scheme. The social workers may have referred the targeted mothers and the judge allegedly signed off on the adoption paperwork in exchange for a portion of the fee paid by the adopting parents.<br /><br />Formal charges have not yet been filed. The judge and social workers have been suspended for six months pending the results of the prosecutor’s investigation. There is no evidence currently that any of the infants were adopted outside of Costa Rica but police are continuing to investigate.<br /><br />Usha<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20080304/costa-rica-nabs-14-for-selling-babies.htm">Costa Rica Nabs 14 for ‘Selling Babies’</a>, Associated Press, March 4, 2008<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ticotimes.net/dailyarchive/2008_03/0305083.htm">Costa Rican Police Arrest 14 in Baby Trafficking</a>, Tico Times, March 5, 2008<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ticotimes.net/dailyarchive/2008_03/0307083.htm">Alleged Costa Rican Baby Traffickers Released</a>, Tico Times, March 7, 2008Ushahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17770579530963305353noreply@blogger.com1